    Military Education: DOD Needs to Align Academy Preparatory
    Schools' Mission Statements with Overall Guidance and Establish
    Performance Goals (10-SEP-03, GAO-03-1017).

    Each year, the U.S. Air Force Academy, the U.S. Military Academy,
    and the U.S. Naval Academy combined spend tens of millions of
    dollars to operate preparatory schools that provide an
    alternative avenue for about 700 students annually to gain
    admission to the service academies. Service academy officials
    screen all applicants to identify those who they believe could
    succeed at the academies but who would benefit from more
    preparation. The Department of Defense (DOD) pays the full cost
    of providing this preparation. GAO was asked to review the three
    service academy preparatory schools, and this report specifically
    assesses (1) the adequacy of their current mission statements,
    (2) the effectiveness of these schools in accomplishing their
    missions, and (3) the effectiveness of DOD oversight of these
    schools.
    -------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
    REPORTNUM:   GAO-03-1017
        ACCNO:   A08372
      TITLE:     Military Education: DOD Needs to Align Academy
    Preparatory Schools' Mission Statements with Overall Guidance and
    Establish Performance Goals
         DATE:   09/10/2003
      SUBJECT:   Agency missions
    	     Best practices
    	     Cost effectiveness analysis
    	     Federal service academies
    	     Performance measures
    	     Reporting requirements
    	     Schools

    ******************************************************************
    ** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
    ** GAO Product.                                                 **
    **                                                              **
    ** 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-03-1017

    Report to the Subcommittee on Defense, Committee on Appropriations, House
    of Representatives

    United States General Accounting Office

    GAO

    September 2003 MILITARY EDUCATION

    DOD Needs to Align Academy Preparatory Schools' Mission Statements with
    Overall Guidance and Establish Performance Goals

    GAO- 03- 1017

    The three service academy preparatory schools* current mission statements
    do not clearly articulate the purpose for which the schools are being used
    by their respective service academies. In accordance with DOD guidance and
    the service academies* expectations, the preparatory schools give primary
    consideration for enrollment to enlisted personnel, minorities, women, and
    recruited athletes. However, the preparatory school mission statements are
    not clearly aligned with DOD guidance and the academies* expectations.
    This is a continuing problem, which GAO first reported in 1992. Without
    clear mission statements, the service academies and their respective
    preparatory schools cannot establish goals that fully reflect the
    preparatory

    schools* intended purpose. It is difficult to evaluate how effective the
    preparatory schools have been in accomplishing their missions because the
    service academies have not established performance goals for the
    preparatory schools. Without specific performance goals, there is no
    objective yardstick against which to gauge preparatory school
    effectiveness, as would be consistent with the principle

    of best practices for ensuring optimal return on investment. The
    effectiveness of DOD, military service, and service academy oversight is
    limited because the existing oversight framework for assessing preparatory
    school performance does not include performance goals and measures against
    which to objectively assess performance. DOD and the services receive
    annual reports from the academies on preparatory school performance.
    Without stated performance goals and measures, however, the reports do not
    offer DOD, the services, or the service academies as good an insight into
    the preparatory schools* performance and their return on investment as
    they could.

    Academy Preparatory School Operating Costs and Cost Per Graduate, Fiscal
    Years 1999- 2002

    Academy preparatory school

    Cost category FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002

    Total operating costs $6,381,169 $5,385,619 $5,628,625 $5,459,059 U. S.
    Air Force

    Academy Preparatory School

    Cost per graduate 36,673 32,057 30,425 30,842 Total operating

    costs 6,544,277 6,993,648 7,087,020 7,325,311 U. S. Military Academy
    Preparatory School

    Cost per graduate 34,263 35,144 38,727 41,859 Total operating

    costs 7,212,997 8,136,649 8,549,809 9,395,421 U. S. Naval Academy

    Preparatory School Cost per graduate 35,015 43,982 42,117 40,850

    Source: DOD.

    Each year, the U. S. Air Force Academy, the U. S. Military Academy, and
    the U. S. Naval Academy combined spend tens of millions of dollars to
    operate preparatory schools that provide an alternative avenue for about
    700 students annually to gain admission to the service academies. Service
    academy officials screen all applicants to identify those who they believe
    could succeed at the academies but who would benefit

    from more preparation. The Department of Defense (DOD) pays the full cost
    of providing this

    preparation. GAO was asked to review the three service academy preparatory
    schools, and this report specifically assesses (1) the adequacy of their
    current mission statements, (2) the effectiveness of these schools in
    accomplishing

    their missions, and (3) the effectiveness of DOD oversight of these
    schools. GAO recommends that the

    Secretary of Defense direct DOD, in concert with the services and the
    service academies, to align the preparatory schools* mission statements
    with DOD guidance and the academies* expectations; establish quantified
    performance goals and measures for the schools; and enhance the existing
    oversight framework for assessing the schools* performance. In commenting
    on a draft of this report, DOD agreed with the

    recommendations.

    www. gao. gov/ cgi- bin/ getrpt? GAO- 03- 1017. To view the full product,
    including the scope and methodology, click on the link above. For more
    information, contact Derek B. Stewart at (202) 512- 5559 or stewartd@ gao.
    gov. Highlights of GAO- 03- 1017, a report to the

    Subcommittee on Defense, Committee on Appropriations, House of
    Representatives September 2003

    MILITARY EDUCATION

    DOD Needs to Align Academy Preparatory Schools* Mission Statements with
    Overall Guidance and Establish Performance Goals

    Page i GAO- 03- 1017 Military Education Letter 1 Results in Brief 2
    Background 4 Preparatory School Missions Are Not Clearly Defined 8
    Preparatory Schools Maintain Performance Data, but Mission Effectiveness
    Is Difficult to Evaluate 12 DOD Lacks a Complete Framework to Facilitate
    More Effective

    Oversight of the Preparatory Schools 17 Conclusions 18 Recommendations for
    Executive Action 18 Agency Comments 19 Appendix I Scope and Methodology 20

    Appendix II General Information about the Three Service Academy
    Preparatory Schools 22

    Appendix III Preparatory School Enrollment 23

    Appendix IV Students Who Entered the Preparatory Schools and Graduated
    from or Are Still Attending the Academies 26

    Appendix V Students Who Entered the Preparatory Schools and Graduated from
    the Preparatory Schools 32

    Appendix VI Students Who Graduated from the Preparatory Schools and
    Accepted Appointments to the Academies 38 Contents

    Page ii GAO- 03- 1017 Military Education Appendix VII Academy Graduation
    Rates for Preparatory School

    Graduates Versus Direct Appointees 44

    Appendix VIII Comments from the Department of Defense 47

    Appendix IX GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 49

    Tables

    Table 1: Demographics for Preparatory Schools, Class of 2002 6 Table 2:
    Service Academy Preparatory School Operating Costs and Cost per Graduate,
    Fiscal Years 1999- 2002 7 Table 3: Preparatory School Mission Statements 9
    Figures

    Figure 1: Service Academies* Preparatory School Locations 5 Figure 2:
    Average Preparatory School Enrollment, by Target Group, for Preparatory
    School Academic Years 1993 through 2002 10 Figure 3: Average Service
    Academy Target Group Enrollment, by Academy Preparatory School, for
    Preparatory School Academic Years 1993 through 2002 11 Figure 4: Average
    Number of Students Admitted to the Preparatory

    Schools and Graduating from or Still Attending an Academy for Preparatory
    School Academic Years 1993 through 2002 13 Figure 5: Comparison between
    Academy Grade Point Averages of

    Preparatory School Graduates and of Academy Student Bodies as a Whole for
    the Academy Class of 2002 15 Figure 6: Comparison between Average Academy
    Graduation Rates

    of Preparatory School Graduates and of Direct Appointees for Preparatory
    School Academic Years 1993 through 1998 16 Figure 7: Percentage of Total
    Enrollment, by Target Groups, at the

    U. S. Air Force Academy Preparatory School for Preparatory School Academic
    Years 1993 through 2002 23

    Page iii GAO- 03- 1017 Military Education

    Figure 8: Percentage of Total Enrollment, by Target Groups, at the U. S.
    Military Academy Preparatory School for Preparatory School Academic Years
    1993 through 2002 24 Figure 9: Percentage of Total Enrollment, by Target
    Groups, at the

    U. S. Naval Academy Preparatory School for Preparatory School Academic
    Years 1993 through 2002 25 Figure 10: Percentage of Total U. S. Air Force
    Academy Preparatory

    School Enrollment Graduating from or Still Attending the U. S. Air Force
    Academy for Preparatory School Academic Years 1993 through 2002 26 Figure
    11: Percentage of Four Target Groups Entering the U. S. Air

    Force Academy Preparatory School and Graduating from or Still Attending
    the U. S. Air Force Academy for Preparatory School Academic Years 1993
    through 2002 27 Figure 12: Percentage of Total U. S. Military Academy
    Preparatory

    School Enrollment Graduating from or Still Attending the U. S. Military
    Academy for Preparatory School Academic Years 1993 through 2002 28 Figure
    13: Percentage of Four Target Groups Entering the U. S.

    Military Academy Preparatory School and Graduating from or Still Attending
    the U. S. Military Academy for Preparatory School Academic Years 1993
    through 2002 29 Figure 14: Percentage of Total U. S. Naval Academy
    Preparatory

    School Enrollment Graduating from or Still Attending the U. S. Naval
    Academy for Preparatory School Academic Years 1993 through 2002 30 Figure
    15: Percentage of Four Target Groups Entering the U. S.

    Naval Academy Preparatory School and Graduating from or Still Attending
    the U. S. Naval Academy for Preparatory School Academic Years 1993 through
    2002 31 Figure 16: Percentage of Students Graduating from the U. S. Air

    Force Academy Preparatory School for Preparatory School Academic Years
    1993 through 2002 32 Figure 17: Percentage of Four Target Groups
    Graduating from the

    U. S. Air Force Academy Preparatory School for Preparatory School Academic
    Years 1993 through 2002 33 Figure 18: Percentage of Students Graduating
    from the U. S.

    Military Academy Preparatory School for Preparatory School Academic Years
    1993 through 2002 34 Figure 19: Percentage of Four Target Groups
    Graduating from the

    U. S. Military Academy Preparatory School for Preparatory School Academic
    Years 1993 through 2002 35

    Page iv GAO- 03- 1017 Military Education

    Figure 20: Percentage of Students Graduating from the U. S. Naval Academy
    Preparatory School for Preparatory School Academic Years 1993 through 2002
    36 Figure 21: Percentage of Four Target Groups Graduating from the

    U. S. Naval Academy Preparatory School for Preparatory School Academic
    Years 1993 through 2002 37 Figure 22: Percentage of U. S. Air Force
    Academy Preparatory

    School Graduates Accepting U. S. Air Force Academy Appointments for
    Preparatory School Academic Years 1993 through 2002 38 Figure 23:
    Percentage of Four Target Groups of U. S. Air Force

    Academy Preparatory School Graduates Accepting U. S. Air Force Academy
    Appointments for Preparatory School Academic Years 1993 through 2002 39
    Figure 24: Percentage of U. S. Military Academy Preparatory School

    Graduates Accepting U. S. Military Academy Appointments for Preparatory
    School Academic Years 1993 through 2002 40 Figure 25: Percentage of Four
    Target Groups of U. S. Military

    Academy Preparatory School Graduates Accepting U. S. Military Academy
    Appointments for Preparatory School Academic Years 1993 through 2002 41
    Figure 26: Percentage of U. S. Naval Academy Preparatory School

    Graduates Accepting U. S. Naval Academy Appointments for Preparatory
    School Academic Years 1993 through 2002 42 Figure 27: Percentage of Four
    Target Groups of U. S. Naval

    Academy Preparatory School Graduates Accepting U. S. Naval Academy
    Appointments for Preparatory School Academic Years 1993 through 2002 43
    Figure 28: Comparative U. S. Air Force Academy Graduation Rates

    for Preparatory School Academic Years 1993 through 1998 44 Figure 29:
    Comparative U. S. Military Academy Graduation Rates for Preparatory School
    Academic Years 1993 through 1998 45 Figure 30: Comparative U. S. Naval
    Academy Graduation Rates for Preparatory School Academic Years 1993
    through 1998 46

    Page v GAO- 03- 1017 Military Education Abbreviations

    DOD Department of Defense GAO General Accounting Office OUSD/ P& R Office
    of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel

    and Readiness

    This is a work of the U. S. government and is not subject to copyright
    protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
    its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
    work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
    copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
    separately.

    Page 1 GAO- 03- 1017 Military Education

    September 10, 2003 The Honorable Jerry Lewis Chairman The Honorable John
    P. Murtha Ranking Minority Member Subcommittee on Defense Committee on
    Appropriations House of Representatives

    The U. S. Air Force Academy, the U. S. Military Academy, and the U. S.
    Naval Academy combined spend tens of millions of dollars each year to
    operate service academy preparatory schools, preparing about 700 students
    for admission to the service academies. The service academies are one of
    several sources of newly commissioned officers, and they are solely
    responsible for sending students to the academy preparatory

    schools. The service academies receive more than 10,000 applications each
    year. Academy admissions officials screen all applicants and identify
    those who they believe could succeed at the academies but who would

    benefit from more preparation. The preparatory schools provide an
    alternative avenue for these applicants to gain admission to the
    academies. The Department of Defense (DOD) pays the full cost of providing
    academic preparation, military orientation, and physical conditioning. In
    fiscal year 2002, DOD reported that costs per graduate for the U. S. Air
    Force Academy Preparatory School, the U. S. Military Academy Preparatory
    School, and the U. S. Naval Academy Preparatory School were $30,842,
    $41,859, and $40, 850, respectively.

    The House report on defense appropriations for fiscal year 2003 directed
    that we review the three service academies and their preparatory schools.
    1 As part of our review of the service academies, we reviewed DOD

    oversight and admissions issues at all three service academies. We also
    surveyed all students and faculty at the three academies to obtain their
    perceptions of various aspects of student life at the academies. Based on
    our review of the service academies, we recommended that the Secretary of
    Defense, in concert with the services, enhance performance goals and

    measures to improve oversight of the academies* operations and 1 H. R.
    Rept. 107- 532, at 14- 15 (2002).

    United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548

    Page 2 GAO- 03- 1017 Military Education

    performance. These issues are addressed in separate reports. 2 This report
    addresses our review of all three service academy preparatory schools. As
    agreed with your offices, we assessed (1) the adequacy of the current
    mission statements of the preparatory schools, (2) the effectiveness of
    the preparatory schools in accomplishing their missions, and (3) the
    effectiveness of DOD oversight of the preparatory schools.

    In addition to interviewing officials at all three preparatory schools,
    the academies, the service headquarters, and DOD*s Office of the Under
    Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (OUSD/ P& R), we reviewed
    the adequacy of the preparatory schools* mission statements and pertinent
    DOD guidance. To assess the effectiveness of the preparatory schools in
    accomplishing their missions, we analyzed aggregate preparatory school
    performance data for preparatory school academic years 1993 through 2002
    for four target groups of students common to all preparatory schools: (1)
    enlisted personnel, (2) minorities, (3) recruited athletes, and (4) women.
    Our analysis included preparatory school admissions and graduation data
    for each target group. We also reviewed DOD guidance on oversight roles,
    responsibilities, and reporting requirements, as well as academy
    regulations and instructions. We conducted our review between February and
    July 2003. Further details on our scope and methodology are in appendix I.

    The three preparatory schools* current mission statements do not clearly
    articulate the purpose for which the schools are being used by their
    respective service academies. This lack of clarity in mission statements
    is a continuing problem, which we first reported on in 1992. 3 Although
    the three preparatory schools exist to help the service academies meet
    their

    2 U. S. General Accounting Office, Military Education: DOD Needs to
    Enhance Performance Goals and Measures to Improve Oversight of Military
    Academies,

    GAO- 03- 1000 (Washington, D. C.: September 2003) and Military Education:
    Student and Faculty Perceptions of Student Life at the Military Academies,
    GAO- 03- 1001 (Washington, D. C.: September 2003).

    3 U. S. General Accounting Office, DOD Service Academies: Academy
    Preparatory Schools Need a Clearer Mission and Better Oversight, GAO/
    NSIAD- 92- 57 (Washington, D. C.: Mar. 13, 1992). Results in Brief

    Page 3 GAO- 03- 1017 Military Education

    diversity needs, 4 their mission statements simply refer to preparing
    *selected personnel who meet special needs,* *selected candidates,* or
    *candidates* for admission to and success at the service academies. These
    mission statements are not clearly aligned with DOD guidance, which states
    that primary consideration for preparatory school enrollment shall be
    accorded to nominees to fill officer objectives for three target groups:
    (1) enlisted personnel, (2) minorities, and (3) women. 5 Senior service
    academy officials told us that their expectations of the preparatory
    schools to provide students in these three groups are consistent with DOD
    guidance, and that they also rely on the preparatory schools to meet their
    needs for a fourth group* recruited athletes. Without clear mission
    statements, the service academies and their respective preparatory schools
    cannot establish performance goals that fully reflect the preparatory
    schools* intended purpose.

    It is difficult to evaluate how effective the preparatory schools have
    been in accomplishing their missions because the service academies have
    not established performance goals for their preparatory schools. The
    preparatory schools collect a substantial amount of performance data for
    the four target groups. However, without specific performance goals, the
    service academies do not have an objective yardstick against which to
    gauge preparatory school effectiveness, as would be consistent with the
    principle of best practices for ensuring optimal return on investment.

    The effectiveness of DOD, military service, and service academy oversight
    is limited because the existing oversight framework for assessing
    preparatory school performance does not include performance goals and
    measures. DOD, the services, and the service academies largely conduct

    oversight activities without the benefit of quantified performance goals
    and measures to assess how well the preparatory schools are preparing
    targeted groups of students for admission to and success at the service
    academies. DOD and the services receive annual reports from the academies*
    which have direct oversight responsibility for the preparatory schools* on
    preparatory school performance. While the data within these

    4 Preparatory school officials define the word *diversity* to be inclusive
    of enlisted personnel, minorities, recruited athletes, and women. Senior
    academy officials stated that they do not need to target women for
    enrollment at the preparatory schools, but they continue to do so in order
    to provide an environment comparable to the environment that students will
    encounter at the academies.

    5 Department of Defense, Directive 1322.22, Service Academies, S: 4.9. 2,
    August 24, 1994.

    Page 4 GAO- 03- 1017 Military Education

    reports provide perspective on current performance compared with past
    performance, without stated performance goals and measures, these data do
    not offer DOD, the services, or the service academies as good an insight

    into the preparatory schools* performance and return on investment as they
    could. For example, the data reported by the preparatory schools show that
    fewer than 60 percent of the students who were admitted to the preparatory
    schools during the past 10 years graduated from or are still attending the
    academies; however, there is no stated goal for graduation rates against
    which to assess this rate. Other data reported by the preparatory schools
    show that the percentage of students in the target groups admitted to the
    preparatory schools has varied over the past 10 years; however, there are
    no stated goals against which to measure the adequacy of these admission
    trends.

    This report contains recommendations that DOD, in concert with the service
    headquarters and service academies, clarify the preparatory schools*
    mission statements by aligning these statements with the department*s
    directive and the service academies* expectations that target student
    groups for primary enrollment consideration; establish quantified
    performance goals and measures, linked with the schools* mission

    statements; and enhance the existing oversight framework by using
    quantified performance goals and measures to objectively evaluate the
    performance of the preparatory schools. In commenting on a draft of this
    report, DOD concurred with our recommendations.

    Each service academy operates its own preparatory school. The U. S. Air
    Force Academy Preparatory School is co- located with the U. S. Air Force
    Academy in Colorado Springs, Colorado. The U. S. Military Academy
    Preparatory School is located at Fort Monmouth, New Jersey, and the U. S.
    Naval Academy Preparatory School is located in Newport, Rhode Island. 6
    (See fig 1.)

    6 In addition to the U. S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland, some
    students attending the U. S. Naval Academy Preparatory School also go on
    to attend the U. S. Coast Guard Academy in New London, Connecticut, or the
    U. S. Merchant Marine Academy in Kings Point, New York. Background

    Page 5 GAO- 03- 1017 Military Education

    Figure 1: Service Academies* Preparatory School Locations

    During World War I, the Secretaries of the Army and the Navy nominated
    enlisted personnel to their respective service academies. Many of the
    first enlisted personnel did poorly on service academy entrance
    examinations, and many of the slots that were created for them went
    unfilled. To coach enlisted nominees for service academy entrance
    examinations, Army and Navy officials formally established the Military
    Academy and Naval Academy preparatory schools in 1946 and 1920,
    respectively. (The U. S. Air Force Academy was created in 1954, and its
    preparatory school in 1961.) The preparatory schools have evolved over the
    years and become more diverse. Today, the student bodies of these schools
    consist of enlisted personnel, minorities, recruited athletes, and women
    (see table 1).

    Page 6 GAO- 03- 1017 Military Education

    Table 1: Demographics for Preparatory Schools, Class of 2002 U. S. Air
    Force

    Academy Preparatory School

    U. S. Military Academy Preparatory School

    U. S. Naval Academy Preparatory School

    Total enrollment 225 227 315

    Enlisted personnel 43 56 96 Minorities 111 104 173 Recruited athletes 90
    59 87 Women 40 41 47 Source: GAO analysis of DOD data. Notes: The
    population target groups are not mutually exclusive. Therefore, the sum of
    enrollment figures provided by target group will be greater than the total
    enrollment figure provided for each preparatory school.

    Preparatory school classes of 2002 should graduate from the academies in
    2006.

    To be admitted to a preparatory school, an applicant must meet basic
    eligibility requirements. Because applicants to the academies must (1) be
    unmarried, (2) be a U. S. citizen, (3) be at least 17 years of age and
    must not have passed their twenty- third birthday on July 1 of the year
    they enter an academy, (4) have no dependents, and (5) be of good moral
    character, the

    preparatory schools apply the same requirements. 7 The preparatory schools
    do not charge for tuition. The enlisted personnel who are selected to
    attend the preparatory schools are reassigned to the preparatory schools
    as their duty stations, and these enlisted personnel continue to be paid
    at the grades they earned before enrolling. Civilians who are selected to
    attend the preparatory schools enlist in the reserves and are paid about
    $700 per month. Enlisted personnel must complete their military
    obligations if they do not complete the programs or go on to one of the
    academies. Civilian students do not incur any financial or further
    military obligation if they do not complete the programs or go on to one
    of the academies. However, they also do not accrue any transferable
    college credits while attending the preparatory schools.

    The preparatory schools offer a 10- month course of instruction that
    combines academic instruction, physical conditioning, and an orientation
    to military life. The daily schedule includes several hours of classroom
    instruction, mandatory study time, and extra instruction; time for
    athletics 7 10 U. S. C. S:S: 4346, 6958, and 9346; and DOD Directive
    1322.22 S: 4.3.

    Page 7 GAO- 03- 1017 Military Education

    or physical training; and some instruction in military customs and
    practices. Emphasis is placed on giving each candidate as much tutorial
    assistance as is necessary to maximize the individual*s potential for
    success. The student body at each school is organized into a military unit
    with a student chain of command that is advised by commissioned and
    noncommissioned officers. This structure is intended to provide the
    students with exposure to military discipline and order.

    In fiscal year 2002, DOD reported that the total cost to operate all three
    preparatory schools was about $22 million (see table 2). We did not
    independently verify or evaluate these costs.

    Table 2: Service Academy Preparatory School Operating Costs and Cost per
    Graduate, Fiscal Years 1999- 2002 Academy preparatory school Cost category
    FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002

    Total operating costs $6,381,169 $5,385,619 $5,628,625 $5,459,059 U. S.
    Air Force Academy Preparatory School Cost per graduate 36,673 32,057
    30,425 30,842

    Total operating costs 6,544,277 6, 993,648 7,087,020 7, 325,311 U. S.
    Military Academy Preparatory School Cost per graduate 34,263 35,144 38,727
    41,859

    Total operating costs 7,212,997 8, 136,649 8,549,809 9, 395,421 U. S.
    Naval Academy Preparatory School Cost per graduate 35,015 43,982 42,117
    40,850

    Source: DOD.

    OUSD/ P& R, the service headquarters, and the service academies have
    established clear roles and responsibilities for oversight of the
    preparatory schools. According to DOD Directive 1322.22 (Service
    Academies), the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness has
    responsibility to assess the operations and establish policy and guidance

    for uniform oversight and management of the service academies and their
    preparatory schools. 8 The service headquarters perform their oversight
    over their respective academies and preparatory schools in accordance with
    the directive. The superintendent of each academy reports directly to the
    uniformed head of his respective service (the Chiefs of Staff for the Army
    and the Air Force and the Chief of Naval Operations for the Navy), in
    accordance with the chain of command for each service. The academies
    perform the primary DOD oversight function for their respective
    preparatory schools. The commanding officers at the Air Force and Army

    8 DOD Directive 1322.22 S:S: 5.1 and 6. 2.

    Page 8 GAO- 03- 1017 Military Education

    preparatory schools hold the rank of colonel, and the head of the Navy*s
    preparatory school holds the equivalent rank of captain. They report
    directly to the superintendent of their respective service academies, in
    accordance with the chain of command for each service.

    Appendix II provides general information about the three service academy
    preparatory schools.

    The three preparatory schools* current mission statements do not clearly
    define the purpose for which the schools are being used by their
    respective service academies. Mission statements should define an
    organization*s purpose in language that states desired outcomes. Mission
    statements also bring the organization*s vision into focus, explain why it
    exists, and tell what it does. Without a clear mission statement, the
    organization cannot establish goals that fully reflect the organization*s
    intended purpose.

    Although the preparatory schools exist to help the service academies meet
    their diversity needs, the schools* mission statements simply refer to
    preparing *selected personnel who meet special needs,* *selected
    candidates,* or *candidates* for admission to and success at the service
    academies. These mission statements are not clearly aligned with DOD
    guidance, 9 which states that primary consideration for enrollment shall
    be accorded to nominees to fill officer objectives for three target
    groups: (1) enlisted personnel, (2) minorities, and (3) women. Senior
    academy officials told us that their expectations of the preparatory
    schools are consistent with DOD guidance on enrollment objectives and that
    they also rely on the preparatory schools to meet their needs for a fourth
    group* recruited athletes* adding that the service academies would not be
    able to meet their diversity needs if the preparatory schools did not
    exist.

    However, neither DOD nor the service academies have required the
    preparatory schools to align their mission statements to reflect DOD*s
    guidance and the service academies* expectations. As a result, none of the
    mission statements are explicit about the preparatory schools* intended
    purpose. Table 3 presents more detailed information on the preparatory

    schools* mission statements. 9 DOD Directive 1322.22 S: 4.9. 2.
    Preparatory School

    Missions Are Not Clearly Defined

    Page 9 GAO- 03- 1017 Military Education

    Table 3: Preparatory School Mission Statements Service academy preparatory
    school Mission statement

    Air Force To prepare, motivate, and evaluate for admission to and success
    at the Air Force Academy selected personnel who meet the special needs of
    the Air Force.

    Army To provide academic, military, and physical instruction in a moral-
    ethical military environment to prepare and motivate candidates for
    success at the U. S. Military Academy.

    Navy To prepare selected candidates morally, mentally, and physically,
    with emphasis on strengthening the academic foundation of individual
    candidates for officer accession through the U. S. Naval, Coast Guard, and
    Merchant Marine Academies.

    Source: Service academy preparatory schools. .

    Even though the mission statements are not explicit about the schools*
    intended purpose, data on the number of students belonging to target
    groups who enter the preparatory schools and then enter the service
    academies indicate that, in practice, the schools are giving primary
    consideration for enrollment to those target groups identified by the DOD
    directive and the service academies* namely, enlisted personnel,
    minorities, recruited athletes, and women* and are primarily preparing
    those student groups for admission to the service academies. Preparatory
    school and service academy admissions data over a 10- year period indicate
    that the preparatory schools are a source for the academies of target
    groups* enlisted personnel, minorities, recruited athletes, and women*
    identified by DOD guidance and service academy officials. Average
    admissions data on the representation of targeted groups in the
    preparatory schools for preparatory school academic years 1993 through
    2002 are shown in figure 2. (Appendix III contains detailed enrollment

    figures, by target group, for each of the preparatory schools.) Figure 3
    shows the average percentage of each targeted group enrolled at the
    service academies that came from the preparatory schools for the same time
    period.

    Page 10 GAO- 03- 1017 Military Education

    Figure 2: Average Preparatory School Enrollment, by Target Group, for
    Preparatory School Academic Years 1993 through 2002

    Note: The population target groups are not mutually exclusive. Therefore,
    percentages may total more than 100.

    Page 11 GAO- 03- 1017 Military Education

    Figure 3: Average Service Academy Target Group Enrollment, by Academy
    Preparatory School, for Preparatory School Academic Years 1993 through
    2002

    We first identified this lack of clarity in mission statements in our 1992
    report on the preparatory schools. In the 1992 report, we concluded that
    the preparatory schools* missions were not clearly defined and that the
    preparatory schools appeared to be pursuing somewhat differing goals for
    the target groups of enlisted personnel, minorities, recruited athletes,
    and women* the primary groups the schools served at that time. We

    recommended that the Secretary of Defense determine what role the
    preparatory schools should play among the services* officer production
    programs and direct the services to clarify their school missions
    accordingly. To address this lack of clarity, DOD indicated that it
    planned to work with the services to develop a consistent mission
    statement for

    these schools that would be approved by May 1992. As discussed previously,
    however, the preparatory schools* current mission statements still do not
    clearly define the purpose for which the schools are being used by their
    respective service academies.

    Page 12 GAO- 03- 1017 Military Education

    It is difficult to evaluate how effective the preparatory schools have
    been in accomplishing their missions because the service academies have
    not established performance goals for their preparatory schools. The
    service academies rely on the preparatory schools to meet their targeted
    needs for enlisted personnel, minorities, recruited athletes, and women.
    The preparatory schools collect a substantial amount of performance data
    for these targeted groups. However, without mission- linked performance
    goals and measures, the service academies cannot objectively and formally
    assess these data to determine mission effectiveness. Without specific
    performance goals, there is no objective yardstick against which to gauge
    preparatory school effectiveness, as would be consistent with the
    principle of best practices for ensuring optimal return on investment.

    With performance goals against which to compare actual performance, an
    organization can gauge how effectively it is meeting its mission. To
    assess effectiveness in achieving its mission, an organization should
    establish performance goals to define the level of performance to be

    achieved by a program;  express such goals in an objective, quantifiable,
    and measurable form;  provide a basis to compare actual program results
    with performance

    goals; and  report assessment results, including actions needed to
    achieve unmet

    goals or make programs minimally effective. The preparatory schools
    collect performance data, such as the number of students admitted to the
    schools, the types of students (enlisted personnel, minorities, recruited
    athletes, and women) admitted, and the number who entered and graduated
    from the academies. These descriptive data show, among other things, that
    during the past 10 years, an average of 76 percent

    of students enrolled at the preparatory schools graduated from them. Data
    for this same 10- year period show that a smaller percentage of all
    students admitted to the preparatory schools graduated from or are still
    attending the academies. For example, 51 percent of students who were
    admitted to the Air Force Academy preparatory school, 56 percent of
    students admitted to the Military Academy preparatory school, and 59
    percent of students admitted to the Naval Academy preparatory school
    graduated from or are still attending their respective academies. Senior
    officials at

    the preparatory schools and academies stated that they are satisfied with
    these results. Preparatory Schools

    Maintain Performance Data, but Mission Effectiveness Is Difficult to
    Evaluate

    Preparatory Schools Collect Performance Data

    Page 13 GAO- 03- 1017 Military Education

    Figure 4 shows the average number of students who entered the preparatory
    schools, graduated from the preparatory schools, entered the academies,
    and graduated from or are still attending the academies for preparatory
    school academic years 1993 through 2002.

    Figure 4: Average Number of Students Admitted to the Preparatory Schools
    and Graduating from or Still Attending an Academy for Preparatory School
    Academic Years 1993 through 2002

    Note: Preparatory school students who entered the academies after 1998
    were still attending the academies at the time of this review.

    Appendix IV provides more detailed information, for class totals and by
    target groups, on the percentage of students who entered the preparatory
    schools and graduated from or are still attending the academies between
    preparatory school academic years 1993 and 2002. Appendix V provides more
    detailed information, for class totals and target groups, on the
    percentage of students who graduated from the preparatory schools for that
    same time period. Appendix VI provides more detailed information,

    Page 14 GAO- 03- 1017 Military Education

    for class totals and by target groups, on the percentage of preparatory
    school graduates who accepted appointments to the academies.

    The service academies have not established quantified performance goals
    for their preparatory schools. However, they do have implicit
    expectations. Senior officials at both the preparatory schools and the
    academies told us that the preparatory schools are expected to enable
    preparatory school students to (1) meet the service academies* academic

    standards and (2) graduate from the service academies at rates comparable
    to the rates of students who received direct appointments to the service
    academies.

    A 2.0 grade point average is the minimum level of academic performance
    accepted at the academies. Our analysis of academy data for the graduating
    class of 2002 shows that preparatory school graduates, as a group,
    exceeded the 2.0 grade point average but had slightly lower cumulative
    grade point averages than did the student body as a whole. 10 Figure 5
    shows the cumulative grade point averages for preparatory

    school graduates and service academy student bodies as a whole for the
    class of 2002. 10 Data refer to preparatory school graduates for class
    year 1998. These students graduated

    from the academies in 2002. Service Academies Have

    Not Established Performance Goals

    Page 15 GAO- 03- 1017 Military Education

    Figure 5: Comparison between Academy Grade Point Averages of Preparatory
    School Graduates and of Academy Student Bodies as a Whole for the Academy
    Class of 2002 For preparatory school academic years 1993 through 1998, an
    average of

    73 percent of preparatory school graduates who accepted appointments to
    the academies graduated from the service academies, while the average rate
    was 78 percent of students directly admitted to the academies for the same
    years. 11 Thus, graduation rates for preparatory school graduates were
    slightly lower than the rates for students directly admitted to the
    service academies. The academies, however, do not have a performance
    target for graduation rates for preparatory school graduates, and
    therefore these rates do not necessarily represent the achievement of a
    desired outcome. Figure 6 shows the average percentage of preparatory
    school students who graduated from the academies and the average
    percentage of directly appointed students who graduated from the academies
    for preparatory

    11 Preparatory school students who entered the academies after 1998 were
    still attending the academies at the time of this review. Therefore, 1998
    is the last year in which academy graduation data were available for
    preparatory school students.

    Page 16 GAO- 03- 1017 Military Education

    school academic years 1993 through 1998. Appendix VII provides more
    detailed information for comparative graduation rates for preparatory
    school academic years 1993 through 1998 for each preparatory school.

    Figure 6: Comparison between Average Academy Graduation Rates of
    Preparatory School Graduates and of Direct Appointees for Preparatory
    School Academic Years 1993 through 1998

    We first found that DOD had not established specific performance goals for
    the preparatory schools in our 1992 review on the service academy
    preparatory schools. In that report, we concluded that without such goals,
    DOD lacked the tools it needed to determine whether the schools were
    effective. DOD still has not required the academies to establish
    quantified performance goals that are clearly linked with the mission of
    the schools.

    Page 17 GAO- 03- 1017 Military Education

    The effectiveness of DOD, military service, and service academy oversight
    is limited because the existing oversight framework for assessing
    preparatory school performance does not include, among other things,
    performance goals and mission statements* as discussed in previous
    sections of this report* and objective measures against which to assess
    performance. An effective oversight framework includes tracking
    achievements in comparison with plans, goals, and objectives and analyzing
    the differences between actual performance and planned results. The
    interrelationship of these elements is essential for accountability and
    proper stewardship of government resources, and for achieving effective
    and efficient program results. Without formal goals and measures that are,
    moreover, linked to mission statements, oversight bodies do not have
    sufficient focus for their activities and cannot systematically assess an
    organization*s strengths and weaknesses or identify appropriate remedies
    to achieve the best value for the investment in the organization.

    OUSD/ P& R, the services, and the service academies have established
    mechanisms to conduct oversight of the preparatory schools through DOD
    guidance established in 1994. 12 OUSD/ P& R is required to assess and
    monitor the preparatory schools* operations based on the information
    provided in the annual reports it requires from the service secretaries.
    13 The service headquarters are responsible for oversight for their
    respective

    academies and preparatory schools, and they oversee the schools*
    operations through the annual preparatory school reports that they submit
    to OUSD/ P& R. These reports contain data on various aspects of
    preparatory school performance, such as student demographic trends,
    admissions trends, and attrition.

    The service academies exercise direct oversight of their respective
    preparatory schools and monitor the schools* performance through ongoing
    collection of data required by OUSD/ P& R. For example, each of the
    service academies collects preparatory school data such as the number of
    students admitted to the schools, the types of students (enlisted
    personnel, minorities, recruited athletes, and women) admitted, and the
    number who entered and graduated from the academies.

    DOD, the service headquarters, and the service academies, through these
    annual assessment reports, are able to compare aspects of preparatory

    12 DOD Directive 1322.22. 13 DOD Directive 1322.22 S:S: 5.1. 2 and 6.2.
    DOD Lacks a Complete Framework

    to Facilitate More Effective Oversight of the Preparatory Schools

    Page 18 GAO- 03- 1017 Military Education

    school performance against prior period results. For example, service
    academy data show that over the past 10 years, 51 percent of students who
    were admitted to the Air Force Preparatory School, 56 percent of students
    admitted to the Military Academy Preparatory School, and 59 percent of
    students admitted to the Naval Academy Preparatory School graduated from
    or are still attending their respective academies. Other data reported

    by the preparatory schools show that the percentage of students in the
    target groups admitted to the schools has varied over the past 10 years.
    However, as mentioned in previous sections of this report, the preparatory
    schools lack quantified performance goals that are linked to clear mission
    statements. Without goals linked to clear mission statements, DOD, the
    service headquarters, and the service academies do not have an objective
    basis by which to judge the effectiveness of the preparatory schools*
    performance of their missions.

    Although the service academy preparatory schools receive oversight from a
    number of organizations, they lack clear mission statements and quantified
    performance goals and measures. Thus, there is no objective yardstick
    against which to gauge preparatory school performance, consistent with the
    principle of best practices for ensuring optimal return on investment.
    This conclusion reiterates our 1992 report*s finding that the preparatory
    schools lacked clear mission statements and that DOD lacked the tools
    necessary to determine whether the schools were effective.

    We recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Under Secretary of
    Defense for Personnel and Readiness, in concert with the service
    headquarters and service academies, to

     clarify the preparatory schools* mission statements by aligning these
    statements with the department*s guidance and the academies* expectations,
    which target student groups for primary enrollment consideration;
    establish quantified performance goals and measures, linked with the

    schools* mission statements; and  enhance the existing oversight
    framework by using quantified

    performance goals and measures to objectively evaluate the performance of
    the preparatory schools. Conclusions

    Recommendations for Executive Action

    Page 19 GAO- 03- 1017 Military Education

    In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD concurred with our
    recommendations and indicated that the mission statements of the
    preparatory schools will be aligned with DOD guidance and service
    expectations and that quantitative goals will be established to create
    effective measures and appropriate standards for success. DOD added that
    the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness
    will review and analyze these statistics over time to ensure the
    successful performance of the preparatory schools. DOD*s comments are
    reprinted in their entirety in appendix VIII.

    We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional
    committees; the Secretaries of Defense, the Army, the Navy, and the Air
    Force; and the Director, Office of Management and Budget. We will also
    make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report will
    be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http:// www. gao. gov.

    Please contact me on (202) 512- 5559 if you or your staff have any
    questions concerning this report. Key contributors are listed in appendix
    IX.

    Derek B. Stewart Director Defense Capabilities and Management Agency
    Comments

    Appendix I: Scope and Methodology Page 20 GAO- 03- 1017 Military Education

    To assess the adequacy of the mission statements of the preparatory
    schools, we interviewed officials at the following locations: the Office
    of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Washington,
    D. C.; the U. S. Air Force Academy, Washington Liaison Office, Washington,
    D. C.; Headquarters, Department of the Army, Personnel, Washington, D. C.;

    Headquarters, Department of the Navy, Office of Plans and Policy,
    Washington, D. C.; the U. S. Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs,
    Colorado; the U. S. Military Academy, West Point, New York.; the U. S.
    Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland; the U. S. Air Force Academy
    Preparatory School, Colorado Springs, Colorado; the U. S. Military Academy
    Preparatory School, Fort Monmouth, New Jersey; and the U. S. Naval Academy
    Preparatory School, Newport, Rhode Island. We obtained and reviewed
    Department of Defense (DOD), service, service academy,

    and academy preparatory school guidance, service academy strategic plans
    and instructions, and preparatory school annual reports on operations and
    performance. Using data provided to us by the preparatory schools, we
    analyzed aggregate data for preparatory school academic years 1993 through
    2002, by class totals and by four groups of students* enlisted personnel,
    minorities, recruited athletes, and women* to ascertain the extent to
    which these four groups of students were being admitted to the preparatory
    schools; at what rates these four groups of students graduated from the
    preparatory schools and accepted appointments to the academies; and how
    well these four groups fared at the academies in comparison with their
    nonpreparatory school peers. We also reviewed relevant studies on the
    preparatory schools conducted by internal and external sources.

    To evaluate the effectiveness of the preparatory schools in accomplishing
    their missions, we held discussions with senior service academy and
    preparatory school officials to determine what results they expected the
    preparatory schools to achieve, and we obtained their assessments of the
    schools* effectiveness. We reviewed and analyzed aggregate preparatory
    school performance data for preparatory school academic years 1993 through
    2002. We reviewed and analyzed the preparatory schools* annual assessment
    reports, as well as other relevant data gathered from the academies and
    the preparatory schools. For class totals and for the four target groups
    of students at each of the preparatory schools, we analyzed  the number
    and percentage of preparatory school students who

    entered and graduated from a preparatory school;  the number and
    percentage of preparatory school graduates who

    accepted an appointment to an academy; Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

    Appendix I: Scope and Methodology Page 21 GAO- 03- 1017 Military Education

     the number and percentage of preparatory school graduates who accepted
    an appointment to an academy and then graduated from or are still
    attending an academy; and  the number and percentage of the original
    preparatory school students

    who graduated from or are still attending an academy. We did not
    independently assess data reliability, but we obtained assurances about
    data completeness, accuracy, and reliability from academy officials
    responsible for maintaining data for each preparatory school.

    To assess the effectiveness of DOD oversight of the preparatory schools,
    we reviewed DOD guidance on oversight roles, responsibilities, and
    reporting requirements, as well as academy regulations and instructions,
    and discussed oversight activities with DOD, service, and service academy
    officials. Additionally, we reviewed criteria on the principles of
    effective management, such as those found in Internal Control Standards:
    Internal Control Management and Evaluation Tool. 1 We conducted our review
    from February 2003 through July 2003 in

    accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 1 U. S.
    General Accounting Office, Internal Control Standards: Internal Control
    Management and Evaluation Tool, GAO- 01- 1008G (Washington, D. C.: August
    2001).

    Appendix II: General Information about the Three Service Academy
    Preparatory Schools

    Page 22 GAO- 03- 1017 Military Education

    U. S. Air Force Academy Preparatory School

    U. S. Military Academy Preparatory School

    U. S. Naval Academy Preparatory School

    Service Air Force Army Navy, Marine Corps a Location Colorado Springs,
    Colorado (colocated with the U. S. Air Force Academy)

    Fort Monmouth, New Jersey Newport, Rhode

    Island

    Curriculum Math, English, Chemistry Math, English,

    Success Development, Physical Education, Chemistry b Math, English,

    Chemistry, Physics, Information Technology

    Average enrollment c 228 243 261

    Average graduation c 178 179 197

    Faculty composition About 35 percent

    civilian, 65 percent military instructors; 22 academic billets

    About 30 percent military and 70 percent civilian instructors, 17

    academic billets 1: 1 ratio of military to

    civilian instructors, 34 academic billets

    Academic year 10 months; fourquarter program 10 months; fourquarter
    program 10 months; threetrimester program

    Source: Military service academies. a In addition to the U. S. Naval
    Academy in Annapolis, Maryland, some students attending the U. S. Naval
    Academy Preparatory School also go on to attend the U. S. Coast Guard
    Academy in New London, Connecticut, or the U. S. Merchant Marine Academy
    in Kings Point, New York. b The Military Academy Preparatory School offers
    a voluntary chemistry course over the summer

    break following graduation. c Averages are based on 10 years of data
    covering preparatory school academic years 1993 through

    2002.

    Appendix II: General Information about the Three Service Academy
    Preparatory Schools

    Appendix III: Preparatory School Enrollment Page 23 GAO- 03- 1017 Military
    Education

    Figure 7 shows the composition of each class of Air Force Academy
    Preparatory School enrollees over the past 10 years. Minorities are the
    largest target group at the school, averaging 48 percent of enrollment.
    The percentage of recruited athletes decreased from 1993 through 1996, and
    it has remained relatively constant since then at about 40 percent of

    enrollment. Enlisted personnel experienced the greatest change,
    constituting 12 percent of the student body in 1993, and peaking to 28
    percent in 1996. Enlisted personnel averaged 18 percent of the enrolled
    class from 1993 through 2002.

    Figure 7: Percentage of Total Enrollment, by Target Groups, at the U. S.
    Air Force Academy Preparatory School for Preparatory School Academic Years
    1993 through 2002

    Note: The population target groups are not mutually exclusive. Therefore,
    percentages may total more than 100.

    Appendix III: Preparatory School Enrollment U. S. Air Force Academy
    Preparatory School

    Appendix III: Preparatory School Enrollment Page 24 GAO- 03- 1017 Military
    Education

    Since 1996 the percentage of enlisted personnel enrolled at the Military
    Academy Preparatory School has generally declined from a high of 54
    percent in 1996 to a low of 25 percent in 2002. Concurrently, the
    enrollment of minorities has fluctuated between 29 and 49 percent. (See
    fig. 8.)

    Figure 8: Percentage of Total Enrollment, by Target Groups, at the U. S.
    Military Academy Preparatory School for Preparatory School Academic Years
    1993 through 2002

    Note: The population target groups are not mutually exclusive. Therefore,
    percentages may total more than 100.

    The composition of each class of Naval Academy Preparatory School
    enrollees over the past 10 years is shown in figure 9. Minorities
    constituted the largest target group, averaging 44 percent from 1993
    through 2002. Enlisted personnel made up, on average, 29 percent of the
    enrolled class, and recruited athletes made up, on average, 31 percent of
    the class. U. S. Military Academy

    Preparatory School U. S. Naval Academy Preparatory School

    Appendix III: Preparatory School Enrollment Page 25 GAO- 03- 1017 Military
    Education

    Figure 9: Percentage of Total Enrollment, by Target Groups, at the U. S.
    Naval Academy Preparatory School for Preparatory School Academic Years
    1993 through 2002

    Note: The population target groups are not mutually exclusive. Therefore,
    percentages may total more than 100.

    Appendix IV: Students Who Entered the Preparatory Schools and Graduated
    from or Are Still Attending the Academies

    Page 26 GAO- 03- 1017 Military Education

    Figure 10 shows the percentage of all Air Force Academy Preparatory School
    students who graduated from or are still attending the Air Force Academy.
    From 1993 through 1998, academy graduation rates of Air Force Preparatory
    School students ranged from 43 percent to 53 percent. 1 Figure 11 shows
    the same data for each of the four target groups.

    Figure 10: Percentage of Total U. S. Air Force Academy Preparatory School
    Enrollment Graduating from or Still Attending the U. S. Air Force Academy
    for Preparatory School Academic Years 1993 through 2002

    1 Preparatory school students who entered the academy after 1998 were
    still attending the academy at the time of this review. Appendix IV:
    Students Who Entered the

    Preparatory Schools and Graduated from or Are Still Attending the
    Academies

    U. S. Air Force Academy Preparatory School

    Appendix IV: Students Who Entered the Preparatory Schools and Graduated
    from or Are Still Attending the Academies

    Page 27 GAO- 03- 1017 Military Education

    Figure 11: Percentage of Four Target Groups Entering the U. S. Air Force
    Academy Preparatory School and Graduating from or Still Attending the U.
    S. Air Force Academy for Preparatory School Academic Years 1993 through
    2002

    Note: Preparatory school students who entered the academy after 1998 were
    still attending the academy at the time of this review.

    Appendix IV: Students Who Entered the Preparatory Schools and Graduated
    from or Are Still Attending the Academies

    Page 28 GAO- 03- 1017 Military Education

    Figure 12 shows the percentage of all Army Preparatory School students who
    graduated from or are still attending the Military Academy. From 1993
    through 1998, academy graduation rates of Army Preparatory School students
    ranged from 46 percent to 59 percent. 2 Figure 13 shows the same data for
    each of the four target groups.

    Figure 12: Percentage of Total U. S. Military Academy Preparatory School
    Enrollment Graduating from or Still Attending the U. S. Military Academy
    for Preparatory School Academic Years 1993 through 2002

    2 Preparatory school students who entered the academy after 1998 were
    still attending the academy at the time of this review. U. S. Military
    Academy Preparatory School

    Appendix IV: Students Who Entered the Preparatory Schools and Graduated
    from or Are Still Attending the Academies

    Page 29 GAO- 03- 1017 Military Education

    Figure 13: Percentage of Four Target Groups Entering the U. S. Military
    Academy Preparatory School and Graduating from or Still Attending the U.
    S. Military Academy for Preparatory School Academic Years 1993 through
    2002

    Note: Preparatory school students who entered the academy after 1998 were
    still attending the academy at the time of this review.

    Appendix IV: Students Who Entered the Preparatory Schools and Graduated
    from or Are Still Attending the Academies

    Page 30 GAO- 03- 1017 Military Education

    Figure 14 shows the percentage of all Naval Academy Preparatory School
    students who graduated from or are still attending the Naval Academy. From
    1993 through 1998, academy graduation rates of Naval Academy Preparatory
    School students ranged from 50 percent to 63 percent. 3 Figure 15 shows
    the same data for each of the four target groups.

    Figure 14: Percentage of Total U. S. Naval Academy Preparatory School
    Enrollment Graduating from or Still Attending the U. S. Naval Academy for
    Preparatory School Academic Years 1993 through 2002

    3 Preparatory school students who entered the academy after 1998 were
    still attending the academy at the time of this review. U. S. Naval
    Academy Preparatory School

    Appendix IV: Students Who Entered the Preparatory Schools and Graduated
    from or Are Still Attending the Academies

    Page 31 GAO- 03- 1017 Military Education

    Figure 15: Percentage of Four Target Groups Entering the U. S. Naval
    Academy Preparatory School and Graduating from or Still Attending the U.
    S. Naval Academy for Preparatory School Academic Years 1993 through 2002

    Note: Preparatory school students who entered the academy after 1998 were
    still attending the academy at the time of this review.

    Appendix V: Students Who Entered the Preparatory Schools and Graduated
    from the Preparatory Schools

    Page 32 GAO- 03- 1017 Military Education

    Figure 16 shows the graduation rates for the Air Force Academy Preparatory
    School. In 2002, 79 percent of the students enrolled in the U. S. Air
    Force Preparatory School graduated from the preparatory school. The
    graduation rate remained relatively constant, averaging 78 percent from
    1993 through 2002.

    Figure 16: Percentage of Students Graduating from the U. S. Air Force
    Academy Preparatory School for Preparatory School Academic Years 1993
    through 2002

    Air Force preparatory school graduation rates by target group are shown in
    figure 17. Recruited athletes had the lowest graduation rates, averaging
    67 percent over 10 years. Women and minorities had similar graduation
    rates over 10 years, both averaging 83 percent. Enlisted personnel had the
    highest graduation rate, averaging 85 percent over the past 10 years.
    Appendix V: Students Who Entered the

    Preparatory Schools and Graduated from the Preparatory Schools

    U. S. Air Force Academy Preparatory School

    Appendix V: Students Who Entered the Preparatory Schools and Graduated
    from the Preparatory Schools

    Page 33 GAO- 03- 1017 Military Education

    Figure 17: Percentage of Four Target Groups Graduating from the U. S. Air
    Force Academy Preparatory School for Preparatory School Academic Years
    1993 through 2002

    Figure 18 shows the trend in Army preparatory school graduation rates over
    the past 10 years. In 2002, 77 percent of students in the U. S. Military
    Academy Preparatory School graduated from the school. The graduation rate
    increased during the past 10 years, from a low of 59 percent in 1993 to a
    high of 82 percent in 2000, before declining slightly in both 2001 and
    2002. U. S. Military Academy Preparatory School

    Appendix V: Students Who Entered the Preparatory Schools and Graduated
    from the Preparatory Schools

    Page 34 GAO- 03- 1017 Military Education

    Figure 18: Percentage of Students Graduating from the U. S. Military
    Academy Preparatory School for Preparatory School Academic Years 1993
    through 2002

    Figure 19 shows the Army preparatory school graduation rates, by target
    group, over the past 10 years. The rate for women increased* in fact
    doubled* from a low of 42 percent in 1993 to a high of 84 percent in 2001.
    On average, minorities graduated at a higher rate* 73 percent* than did

    the other target groups from 1993 through 2002. Enlisted personnel had the
    lowest graduation rate among the four target groups, averaging 67 percent
    over 10 years.

    Appendix V: Students Who Entered the Preparatory Schools and Graduated
    from the Preparatory Schools

    Page 35 GAO- 03- 1017 Military Education

    Figure 19: Percentage of Four Target Groups Graduating from the U. S.
    Military Academy Preparatory School for Preparatory School Academic Years
    1993 through 2002

    Figure 20 shows the trend in overall graduation rates at the Navy
    preparatory school for the past 10 years. Graduation rates at the school
    generally declined until 2000, reaching a low of 68 percent in that year.
    The graduation rate increased in the last 2 years, reaching 73 percent in
    2002. Graduation rates averaged 75 percent over the 10 years. U. S. Naval
    Academy Preparatory School

    Appendix V: Students Who Entered the Preparatory Schools and Graduated
    from the Preparatory Schools

    Page 36 GAO- 03- 1017 Military Education

    Figure 20: Percentage of Students Graduating from the U. S. Naval Academy
    Preparatory School for Preparatory School Academic Years 1993 through 2002

    Figure 21 shows historical trends in Navy preparatory school graduation
    rates for target groups. Enlisted personnel had an average graduation rate
    of 83 percent, the highest among the target groups. Women and recruited
    athletes had lower graduation rates, both averaging 69 percent over 10
    years. Graduation rates for minorities generally declined after peaking at

    90 percent in 1994 and averaged 73 percent from 1993 to 2002.

    Appendix V: Students Who Entered the Preparatory Schools and Graduated
    from the Preparatory Schools

    Page 37 GAO- 03- 1017 Military Education

    Figure 21: Percentage of Four Target Groups Graduating from the U. S.
    Naval Academy Preparatory School for Preparatory School Academic Years
    1993 through 2002

    Appendix VI: Students Who Graduated from the Preparatory Schools and
    Accepted Appointments to the Academies

    Page 38 GAO- 03- 1017 Military Education

    Figure 22 shows the percentage of Air Force preparatory school graduates
    who accepted appointments at the Air Force Academy. This percentage has
    remained relatively constant over the past 10 years. On average, 91
    percent of the graduates accepted appointments to attend the Air Force
    Academy.

    Figure 22: Percentage of U. S. Air Force Academy Preparatory School
    Graduates Accepting U. S. Air Force Academy Appointments for Preparatory
    School Academic Years 1993 through 2002

    Figure 23 shows the percentage of Air Force preparatory school students in
    the four target groups* enlisted personnel, minorities, recruited
    athletes, and women* who accepted an appointment to the Air Force Academy.
    All four groups had similar acceptance rates of appointments for
    admission. For the past 10 years, of those who graduated, an average of 91
    percent of enlisted personnel, 92 percent of minorities, 93 percent of
    recruited athletes, and 90 percent of women accepted an appointment to
    attend the Air Force Academy. Appendix VI: Students Who Graduated from

    the Preparatory Schools and Accepted Appointments to the Academies

    U. S. Air Force Academy Preparatory School

    Appendix VI: Students Who Graduated from the Preparatory Schools and
    Accepted Appointments to the Academies

    Page 39 GAO- 03- 1017 Military Education

    Figure 23: Percentage of Four Target Groups of U. S. Air Force Academy
    Preparatory School Graduates Accepting U. S. Air Force Academy
    Appointments for Preparatory School Academic Years 1993 through 2002

    Note: At each of the three preparatory schools, some students do not
    graduate, but they may be admitted to an academy per a commanding
    officer*s recommendation. Therefore, some acceptance rates may exceed 100
    percent.

    Figure 24 shows the rate at which U. S. Military Preparatory School
    students accepted appointments to attend the U. S. Military Academy. From
    1993 through 2002, 97 percent of U. S. Military Academy Preparatory School
    graduates accepted appointments to attend the U. S. Military Academy. U.
    S. Military Academy Preparatory School

    Appendix VI: Students Who Graduated from the Preparatory Schools and
    Accepted Appointments to the Academies

    Page 40 GAO- 03- 1017 Military Education

    Figure 24: Percentage of U. S. Military Academy Preparatory School
    Graduates Accepting U. S. Military Academy Appointments for Preparatory
    School Academic Years 1993 through 2002

    Figure 25 shows the rate at which Army preparatory school students in the
    target groups accepted appointments to attend the Military Academy. On
    average, almost all students in three target groups* minorities, recruited
    athletes, and women* accepted appointments into the U. S. Military Academy
    from 1993 through 2002. The acceptance rate for enlisted personnel
    decreased to 85 percent in 1999; however, it increased to 128 percent in
    2002.

    Appendix VI: Students Who Graduated from the Preparatory Schools and
    Accepted Appointments to the Academies

    Page 41 GAO- 03- 1017 Military Education

    Figure 25: Percentage of Four Target Groups of U. S. Military Academy
    Preparatory School Graduates Accepting U. S. Military Academy Appointments
    for Preparatory School Academic Years 1993 through 2002

    Note: At each of the three preparatory schools, some students do not
    graduate, but they may be admitted to an academy per a commanding
    officer*s recommendation. Therefore, some acceptance rates may exceed 100
    percent.

    Figure 26 shows the acceptance rate, by Navy preparatory school graduates,
    of appointments into the Naval Academy. Rates remained relatively constant
    over 10 years, falling to a low of 87 percent in 1998 and increasing to
    100 percent in 1999. On average, 97 percent of the graduates

    accepted appointments to attend the U. S. Naval Academy.

    Appendix VI: Students Who Graduated from the Preparatory Schools and
    Accepted Appointments to the Academies

    Page 42 GAO- 03- 1017 Military Education

    Figure 26: Percentage of U. S. Naval Academy Preparatory School Graduates
    Accepting U. S. Naval Academy Appointments for Preparatory School Academic
    Years 1993 through 2002

    Note: At each of the three preparatory schools, some students do not
    graduate, but they may be admitted to an academy per a commanding
    officer*s recommendation. Therefore, some acceptance rates may exceed 100
    percent.

    Figure 27 shows the rate at which Navy preparatory school students in the
    target groups accepted appointments to attend the Naval Academy. Women had
    the highest average acceptance rate among the four target groups,
    averaging 100 percent over 10 years. Although acceptance rates for
    enlisted personnel remained at or above 100 percent from 1999 through
    2002, they had the lowest average acceptance rate, averaging 90 percent,
    over 10 years. On average, 99 percent of minorities and 95 percent of
    recruited athletes accepted nominations to attend the U. S. Naval Academy.

    Appendix VI: Students Who Graduated from the Preparatory Schools and
    Accepted Appointments to the Academies

    Page 43 GAO- 03- 1017 Military Education

    Figure 27: Percentage of Four Target Groups of U. S. Naval Academy
    Preparatory School Graduates Accepting U. S. Naval Academy Appointments
    for Preparatory School Academic Years 1993 through 2002

    Note: At each of the three preparatory schools, some students do not
    graduate, but they may be admitted to an academy per a commanding
    officer*s recommendation. Therefore, some acceptance rates may exceed 100
    percent.

    Appendix VII: Academy Graduation Rates for Preparatory School Graduates
    Versus Direct Appointees

    Page 44 GAO- 03- 1017 Military Education

    Figure 28 shows a comparison between the Air Force Academy graduation
    rates of preparatory school graduates and those of students who accepted
    direct appointments to the academy. Academy graduation rates of Air Force
    Academy Preparatory School graduates from 1993 through 1998 were, on
    average, lower than those of direct appointees. 1 Only in 1993 was the
    difference in graduation rates between preparatory school graduates and
    direct appointees greater than 10 percent.

    Figure 28: Comparative U. S. Air Force Academy Graduation Rates for
    Preparatory School Academic Years 1993 through 1998

    1 All students who entered the academy after 1998 were still attending the
    academy and had not yet graduated at the time of this review. Appendix
    VII: Academy Graduation Rates for

    Preparatory School Graduates Versus Direct Appointees

    U. S. Air Force Academy

    Appendix VII: Academy Graduation Rates for Preparatory School Graduates
    Versus Direct Appointees

    Page 45 GAO- 03- 1017 Military Education

    Figure 29 shows a comparison between the Military Academy graduation rates
    of preparatory school graduates and those of students who accepted direct
    appointments to the academy. Academy graduation rates of Military Academy
    Preparatory School graduates from 1993 through 1998 were, on average,
    lower than those of direct appointees. 2 Figure 29: Comparative U. S.
    Military Academy Graduation Rates for Preparatory

    School Academic Years 1993 through 1998

    2 All students who entered the academy after 1998 were still attending the
    academy and had not yet graduated at the time of this review. U. S.
    Military Academy

    Appendix VII: Academy Graduation Rates for Preparatory School Graduates
    Versus Direct Appointees

    Page 46 GAO- 03- 1017 Military Education

    Figure 30 shows a comparison between the Naval Academy graduation rates of
    preparatory school graduates and those of students who accepted direct
    appointments to the academy. Academy graduation rates of Naval Academy
    Preparatory School graduates from 1993 through 1998 were, on average,
    lower than those of direct appointees. 3 Figure 30: Comparative U. S.
    Naval Academy Graduation Rates for Preparatory

    School Academic Years 1993 through 1998

    3 All students who entered the academy after 1998 were still attending the
    academy and had not yet graduated at the time of this review. U. S. Naval
    Academy

    Appendix VIII: Comments from the Department of Defense

    Page 47 GAO- 03- 1017 Military Education

    Appendix VIII: Comments from the Department of Defense

    Appendix VIII: Comments from the Department of Defense

    Page 48 GAO- 03- 1017 Military Education

    Appendix IX: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

    Page 49 GAO- 03- 1017 Military Education

    Sandra F. Bell (202) 512- 8981 In addition to the name above, Daniel J.
    Byrne, Leslie M. Gregor, David F. Keefer, Tina M. Morgan, David E. Moser,
    Cheryl A. Weissman, and Susan K. Woodward made key contributions to this
    report. Appendix IX: GAO Contact and Staff

    Acknowledgments GAO Contact Acknowledgments

    (350312)

    The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm
    of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
    responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of
    the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of
    public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
    analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
    informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO*s commitment to
    good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
    integrity, and reliability.

    The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
    is through the Internet. GAO*s Web site (www. gao. gov) contains abstracts
    and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding
    archive of older products. The Web site features a search engine to help
    you locate documents using key words and phrases. You can print these
    documents in their entirety, including charts and other graphics.

    Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
    correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as *Today*s Reports,* on its
    Web site daily. The list contains links to the full- text document files.
    To have GAO e- mail

    this list to you every afternoon, go to www. gao. gov and select
    *Subscribe to e- mail alerts* under the *Order GAO Products* heading.

    The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
    each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
    Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
    copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
    be sent to: U. S. General Accounting Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM
    Washington, D. C. 20548 To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512- 6000

    TDD: (202) 512- 2537 Fax: (202) 512- 6061

    Contact: Web site: www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm E- mail:
    fraudnet@ gao. gov Automated answering system: (800) 424- 5454 or (202)
    512- 7470 Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@ gao. gov (202) 512-
    4800

    U. S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.
    C. 20548 GAO*s Mission Obtaining Copies of

    GAO Reports and Testimony

    Order by Mail or Phone To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal
    Programs Public Affairs
    *** End of document. ***