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. ***