Air Force Academy: Gender and Racial Disparities (Chapter Report,
09/24/93, GAO/NSIAD-93-244).

As part of an ongoing series of GAO reports on the treatment of women
and minorities at the three service academies, this report deals with
disparities at the Air Force Academy.  GAO discusses (1) differences in
performance indicators between men and women and between whites and
minorities, (2) cadets' perceptions of the fairness of the treatment
that female and minority cadets receive, and (3) actions that the
Academy has taken to enhance the success of women and minorities at the
Academy.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  NSIAD-93-244
     TITLE:  Air Force Academy: Gender and Racial Disparities
      DATE:  09/24/93
   SUBJECT:  Minorities
             Military training
             Racial discrimination
             Military service academies
             Air Force personnel
             Women
             College students
             Military officers
             Military policies
IDENTIFIER:  Air Force Cadet Wing Social Actions Program
             Air Force Academy Professional Development Program
             
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major          **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters,    **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and       **
** single lines.  The numbers on the right end of these lines   **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the      **
** document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the  **
** page numbers of the printed 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.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Report to the Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, U.S.  Senate

September 1993

AIR FORCE ACADEMY - GENDER AND
RACIAL DISPARITIES

GAO/NSIAD-93-244

Air Force Academy

(391162)


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV


Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-254084

Letter Date Goes Here

The Honorable Sam Nunn
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services
United States Senate

Dear Mr.  Chairman: 

In response to your request and that of the former Chairman of the
Subcommittee on Manpower and Personnel, we reviewed the treatment of
women and minorities at all three of the service academies.  This
report deals with the Air Force Academy.  Specifically, the report
addresses
(1) differences in performance indicators between men and women and
between whites and minorities, (2) cadets' perceptions of the
fairness of the treatment that female and minority cadets receive,
and (3) actions the Academy has taken to enhance the success of women
and minorities at the Academy. 

As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce the
contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution of
it until 15 days from the date of issue.  At that time, we will send
copies to interested congressional committees, other interested
Members of Congress, the Secretaries of Defense and the Air Force,
and the Superintendent of the Air Force Academy.  We will also make
copies available to other parties on request. 

This report was prepared under the direction of Mark E.  Gebicke,
Director, Military Operations and Capabilities Issues, who can be
reached on (202) 512-5140 if you or your staff have any questions. 
Other major contributors to this report are listed in appendix IV. 

Sincerely yours,

Frank C.  Conahan
Assistant Comptroller General


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
============================================================ Chapter 0


   PURPOSE
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:1

Concerned about how well the military academies were treating women
and minorities, the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Armed
Services and the former Chairman of its Subcommittee on Manpower and
Personnel asked GAO to examine the issue.  In April, GAO reported on
disparities at the Naval Academy, and GAO is currently preparing a
report on the Military Academy.  This report deals only with the Air
Force Academy and addresses (1) differences in performance indicators
between men and women and between whites and minorities, (2) cadets'
perceptions of the fairness of the treatment that female and minority
cadets receive, and (3) actions the Academy has taken to enhance the
success of women and minorities at the Academy.  This report does not
address the causes of any gender or racial differences in the
performance indicators. 


   BACKGROUND
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2

Congress authorized the creation of the Air Force Academy in 1954,
and as the newest of the U.S.  service academies, it has admitted
minorities since its creation.  The first graduating class, the class
of 1959, included one Asian American but no blacks.  At that time,
the Academy did not maintain records on other ethnic groups such as
Hispanics and Native Americans.  The first graduating class to
include blacks was the class of 1963, which had three black
graduates.  Women were not allowed to attend the Academy until 1976. 
In that year, the entering class included 157 women, or about 10
percent of the class.  Of the 1,406 cadets admitted to the graduating
class of 1993, 173 (about 12 percent) were women, and 272 (about 19
percent) were minorities. 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3

Performance indicators for male and female cadets showed mixed
results--each group fared better in some comparisons and worse in
others.  For example, women have not fared as well as men in their
admissions qualification rates and their physical fitness test
scores.  Women also had higher attrition rates than men did, and
proportionately fewer women were in the top 15 percent of their
graduating classes.  Men, however, received proportionately fewer
admissions offers than women and had lower academic admissions
scores. 

While minority cadets had comparable physical fitness scores, they
had lower academic admissions scores, academic grade point averages,
and military performance averages than white cadets.  Minorities were
also subjected to proportionately more academic and honor reviews
than whites were.  Minority cadets had higher attrition rates, and
proportionately fewer minority cadets were either in the top 50
percent or the top 15 percent of their graduating classes. 

A GAO survey of cadets revealed perceptions that women and minorities
generally received treatment equal to that of men and whites. 
However, a higher percentage of men than women perceived that women
were treated better, and a slightly higher percentage of women than
men perceived that they were treated worse.  Similarly, a higher
percentage of whites than minorities perceived that minorities were
treated better, and a higher percentage of minorities than whites
perceived that they were treated worse. 

Over the past few years, the Academy has taken a number of steps that
should help women and minorities succeed at the Academy.  However, it
does not have a consolidated data base to analyze changes in student
performance indicators.  Neither has it established criteria for
determining when performance differences are significant.  Finally,
the Academy has not documented specific actions it has taken or plans
to take to implement prior equal opportunity recommendations. 


   PRINCIPAL FINDINGS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4


      GENDER DIFFERENCES IN
      ACADEMY STUDENT DATA
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4.1

Overall, GAO made gender comparisons across 12 indicators, covering
various areas of Academy performance.  In 2 of the 12 indicators,
significance tests consistently showed that women did better:  offer
rates and academic admissions scores.  In 3 of the 12 indicators,
significance tests consistently showed that men did better: 
qualification rates, physical fitness scores, and attrition rates. 
In four indicators, comparisons show mixed results:  academic grade
point averages, cumulative military performance averages, Academic
Board review and separation rates, and class standings. 

While women's overall grade point averages were lower than men's,
women tended to receive lower grades than men in their freshman and
sophomore years but higher ones in their junior and senior years. 
For the classes of 1980-92, about 40 percent of female cadets left
before graduating, as compared to 33 percent of male cadets who did
so.  While the percentages of female and male cadets in the top
halves of their graduating classes were essentially equal, a smaller
percentage of female cadets were in the top 15 percent. 


      RACIAL DIFFERENCES IN
      ACADEMY STUDENT DATA
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4.2

In 7 of the 12 indicators GAO used to measure performance,
significance tests consistently showed that whites did better: 
qualification rates, academic admissions scores, academic grade point
averages, cumulative military performance grades, Academic Board
review and separation rates, attrition rates, and class standings. 
In only one of the indicators--offer rates--did significance tests
clearly show that minorities did better.  In three indicators,
comparisons showed mixed results:  physical fitness scores, rates of
conduct review, and honor charge and conviction rates. 

For the classes of 1988 through 1992, 29 percent of minority cadets,
versus 53 percent of whites, graduated in the top halves of their
classes.  Six percent of minority cadets, versus 16 percent of white
cadets, graduated in the top 15 percent.  Regression analysis results
indicate that a correlation between lower grades and minority
students exists even after the difference in success predictor scores
is accounted for.  Also, a significantly higher proportion of
minority cadets were subjected to academic reviews than were white
cadets, and a significantly higher proportion of minority cadets were
academically disenrolled from the Academy. 

Minority cadets fared worse than white cadets in the earlier stages
of the honor adjudicatory process but better at the Honor Sanctions
Board stage (during which cadets are recommended for disenrollment). 
Minorities were more frequently accused of, investigated for, and
found guilty of honor offenses, but they were disenrolled less
frequently than their white counterparts.  Minority and white cadets
fared the same in the conduct review process. 


      PERCEPTIONS OF THE TREATMENT
      OF WOMEN AND MINORITIES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4.3

The majority of cadets responding to a GAO questionnaire perceived
that in general women and minorities received the same treatment as
men and whites by faculty members and by disciplinary boards. 
However, over one-third of the men believed that women received
better treatment by the disciplinary, honor, and academic review
boards and the faculty.  Similarly, between one-quarter and one-third
of the whites believed that minorities received better treatment in
these categories, while about one-quarter of minority respondents
believed that minorities received less favorable treatment. 


      ACADEMY ACTIONS TO ADDRESS
      ISSUES THAT AFFECT WOMEN AND
      MINORITIES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4.4

Over the past few years, the Academy has taken a number of steps to
address issues affecting women and minorities.  For example, it
requires that all cadets complete courses in human relations and has
created several councils and committees to offer guidance and
counseling to students in the treatment of women and minorities.  In
1992, the Academy's Department of Behavioral Sciences and Leadership
administered to 3,900 of the Wing's 4,400 cadets a survey of
attitudes and behaviors toward sexual harassment and racial
discrimination.  In February and March 1993, the Defense Equal
Opportunity Management Institute visited the Academy and made
recommendations to improve the human relations climate there. 
Finally, on May 20, 1993, the Academy's Ad Hoc Committee on Respect
and Dignity issued a report recommending major human relations
initiatives. 

Nevertheless, the Academy has no consolidated data base with which to
systematically track cadets' performance while at the Academy. 
Because it lacks such a data base, the Academy and others have had
difficulties obtaining the information needed to determine changes in
the extent of any disparate treatment.  The 1992 survey the Academy
conducted to measure cadets' attitudes identified areas in which
relations among whites, minorities, and women could be improved. 
However, the Academy has not determined whether disparities in cadet
performance are statistically significant.  Nor has the Academy
prepared a document outlining actions to be taken in response to the
survey.  This lack makes evaluating the effectiveness of corrective
actions difficult. 


   RECOMMENDATIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:5

GAO recommends that the Superintendent of the Air Force Academy take
actions to improve the monitoring and evaluation of gender and racial
disparities.  Such actions should include (1) developing a
comprehensive data base of student performance data, (2) establishing
criteria for determining when student performance differences are
significant, and (3) preparing a consolidated program document to
track recommendations and corrective actions. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:6

As requested, GAO did not obtain fully coordinated Department of
Defense comments on this report.  However, GAO did discuss a draft of
this report with senior officials from the Academy and cognizant
officials of the Air Force and the Office of the Secretary of
Defense.  They suggested a number of technical clarifications, which
have been incorporated in this report, and indicated that the Academy
was taking actions in line with most of GAO's recommendations. 


INTRODUCTION
============================================================ Chapter 1

The U.S.  Air Force Academy provides a 4-year educational and
military program that culminates in a bachelor's degree.  While
attending the Academy, cadets receive pay currently amounting to
$543.90 a month.  In return for their education, cadets agree to
serve a minimum of 5 years on active duty after graduation.\1

Upon graduation, cadets are commissioned as second lieutenants in the
U.S.  Air Force. 

Cadet life at all military service academies is demanding and, in
many ways, different from life at "typical" U.S.  universities.  In
addition to completing the course work and maintaining at least a 2.0
cumulative academic grade point average (on a 4-point scale), cadets
must participate in rigorous military training activities and compete
in intramural or intercollegiate sports.  Little time remains for
rest and relaxation. 


--------------------
\1 This obligation will increase to 6 years beginning with 1996
graduates. 


   REPRESENTATION OF WOMEN AND
   MINORITIES AT THE ACADEMY
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:1

As the newest of the U.S.  service academies, the Air Force Academy
has admitted minorities\2 since its creation by Congress in 1954. 
The first graduating class, the class of 1959, included one Asian
American but no blacks.  At that time, the Academy did not maintain
records on other ethnic groups such as Hispanics and Native
Americans.  The first graduating class to include blacks was that of
1963, with three black graduates. 

Women, on the other hand, were not allowed to attend the Academy
until 1976.  In that year, the entering class included 157 women, or
about 10 percent of the class, and 192 minorities, or about 12
percent.  The 1980 graduating class, the first to include women,
included 97 women, or about 11 percent of the class, and 97
minorities, also about 11 percent. 

Since then, the percentages of minority and women graduates of the
Academy have fluctuated year to year but have not changed
significantly.  From 1980 through 1990, the percentages of women in
the graduating classes ranged from 7 to 13 percent, and the
percentages of minorities from 11 to 16 percent.  Of the 1,406 cadets
admitted to the graduating class of 1993, 173 (about 12 percent) were
women, and 272 (about 19 percent) were minorities. 

   Figure 1.1:  Percentage of
   Minority Groups in Student Body
   (as of June 4, 1993)

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  Academy records. 


--------------------
\2 A "minority" is defined as one whose racial or ethnic origin is
American Indian or Alaskan native, Asian or Pacific Islander, black,
or Hispanic.  These categories, according to the Office of Management
and Budget, are to be used in maintaining and reporting federal
statistics. 


   THE ACADEMY'S ORGANIZATIONAL
   STRUCTURE
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:2

The Superintendent is the commanding officer of the Air Force Academy
and of the military post.  The Superintendent is assisted by a staff
that helps coordinate academic, military, and athletic training.  The
following positions have been established by statute:  (1) a Dean of
the Faculty, who is a permanent professor; (2) a Commandant of
Cadets; (3) 21 permanent professors; (4) a chaplain; and (5) a
Director of Admissions.  The Dean is responsible for the academic
programs; the permanent professors and the Director of Admissions
exercise command only in the academic department.  The Commandant
oversees the cadets and supervises their military and physical
training and discipline. 

The "Cadet Wing" (or the student body) is made up of 4 groups of 10
squadrons, each squadron consisting of about 110 cadets.  Each group
is directed by an Air Force officer with the title "Air Officer
Commanding."

A chain of command of both Air Force and cadet officers oversees the
Cadet Wing.  The Commandant of Cadets, a commissioned officer,
directs the Wing, and his or her staff guides it, provides military
instruction, and directs cadet aviation programs.  Commissioned
officers and cadets interact regarding proposed changes to policies
and regulations.  Upper-class cadets (seniors and juniors, who are
referred to as "first-class" and "second-class" cadets, respectively)
fill leadership positions within the Cadet Wing.  They lead the Wing
during the school year and manage and instruct the summer programs
and various aviation courses. 


   ADMISSION AND GRADUATION
   REQUIREMENTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:3

To qualify for admission to the Academy, an applicant must meet
several requirements.  He or she must (1) be at least 17 years old
and no older than 21 on July 1 of the year entering the Academy; (2)
be a U.S.  citizen (international students authorized admission are
exempt from this requirement); (3) be of high moral character; (4)
meet leadership, academic, physical, and medical standards; and (5)
be unmarried, with no dependents.  In addition, to receive an
appointment to the Academy, an applicant must be nominated, usually
by a Member of Congress.  A Member of Congress and the Vice President
may each recommend no more than
5 cadets for admission to the Air Force Academy at any one time, but
they may nominate up to 10 candidates for each vacancy.  Other
nomination categories include (1) the children of deceased or
disabled veterans or career military personnel and (2) enlisted
members of the regular Air Force, Air Force Reserve, and Air National
Guard. 


      ACADEMIC ADMISSIONS SCORES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:3.1

The Academy uses a rating system to determine applicants' eligibility
for admission.  This system combines an applicant's high school or
college academic performance, college entrance examination scores,
athletic performance, and public or community leadership positions
into a composite admissions score.  The composite admissions score is
made up of three components: 

  -- The academic component, 60 percent of the composite score,
     includes high school or college academic performance, as well as
     scores achieved on the Scholastic Aptitude Test or the American
     College Testing. 

  -- The extracurricular component, 20 percent of the total composite
     score, includes athletic participation, leadership positions in
     public or community affairs, and work experience. 

  -- The admissions panel component, 20 percent of the total
     composite score, includes the results of the faculty and staff
     review, the candidate fitness test, the Liaison Officer
     interview, and the writing sample review. 

According to Academy officials, the academic component is a good
predictor of academic success at the Academy.  Academy officials
maintain that cadets who enter the Academy with the highest academic
admissions scores are those who will most likely earn the highest
grades at the Academy, regardless of their race, ethnicity, or
gender. 


      GRADUATION REQUIREMENTS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:3.2

To graduate from the Academy, a cadet must demonstrate an aptitude
for commissioned service, leadership, and acceptable conduct. 
Specifically, a cadet must maintain a cumulative academic grade point
average of 2.0, must maintain a cumulative military performance
average of 2.0 (also on a scale of 4.0), and must fulfill all
physical education requirements. 

Cadets' success at the Academy affects their career choices.  Those
in the top 15 percent of their classes are given preference for
graduate school.  Also, the higher their class standing, the better
their chance of receiving the post-Academy assignment they desire. 
For example, slots for certain flight programs are limited and very
popular among top-ranking graduates. 


   CADET LIFE
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:4

A typical daily schedule for cadets begins with reveille at 6:30 a.m. 
and concludes with taps at 11:00 p.m.  In between, cadets typically
attend three to four 50-minute academic periods.  The cadets also
have to march to breakfast and lunch (but not to dinner), and after
classes, they participate in mandatory athletic activities (either
intercollegiate athletics or intramural teams).  Intercollegiate
athletes usually practice or compete every afternoon and frequently
on weekends.  Intramural teams meet two afternoons a week after
classes, leaving three afternoons for studying or conducting personal
business.  In addition, cadets participate daily in various military
activities. 

Because of their demanding academic schedules, many cadets take
additional academic instruction after classes or during other
unscheduled times.  Cadets spend many evenings studying in their
rooms or in the library.  Frequently, cadets are required to attend
parades and inspections on Saturday mornings, but they usually have
Saturday afternoons and Sundays free. 

Each year, the new class enters in the summer and begins an intensive
5-week period of military training called "Basic Cadet Training." In
their second year, cadets are required to take Survival, Evasion,
Resistance, and Escape training during the summer.  Cadets also take
a 1-week continental U.S.  field trip during which they visit two Air
Force bases to acquaint them with the missions of major air commands. 
They also participate in parachuting or "soaring."\3 In their third
summer, cadets begin to train both third-class (sophomore) and
fourth-class (freshmen) cadets.  Cadets may serve as instructors in
Basic Cadet Training; Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape
training; parachuting; soaring; navigation; or other programs.  They
also participate in Operation Air Force, a 3-week worldwide program
at an operational Air Force base, to observe and gain a better
understanding of the duties of officers and enlisted personnel. 


--------------------
\3 In the Academy's soaring program, cadets are taught to fly
sailplanes and/or motorgliders at altitudes in excess of 30,000 feet. 


   AIR FORCE ACADEMY'S REVIEW
   SYSTEMS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:5

The Academy's various review and disciplinary functions are carried
out under the auspices of a legislatively established Academy Board
(10 U.S.C.  9351).  Composed of senior Academy officers, the Board
reviews cadets who are deficient in conduct; integrity; and physical,
military, and academic performance.  The Board recommends whether
deficient cadets should be discharged or separated from the Academy. 
(See app.  I for a discussion of the Academy's review systems.)


   OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND
   METHODOLOGY
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:6

The Chairman of the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the former
Chairman of its Subcommittee on Manpower and Personnel asked us to
examine the treatment of women at the military academies. 
Subsequently, former Congressman Albert G.  Bustamante asked us to
review the treatment of minorities.  This report responds to both
requests.  We have previously reported on disparities at the Naval
Academy\4 and are preparing a report on the Military Academy. 

The objectives of our review were to (1) assess whether significant
differences exist between men and women and between whites and
minorities on a variety of performance indicators, (2) identify
cadets' perceptions regarding the fairness of treatment of female and
minority students, and (3) determine what actions the Academy has
taken to enhance the success of women and minorities at the Academy. 

We performed our review at the Air Force Academy, in Colorado
Springs, Colorado, where we reviewed policies, regulations, and
procedures and interviewed Academy officials and faculty members.  We
also administered three questionnaires:  one to cadets, one to
faculty members, and one to the Commandant's staff and other
officers.  In the spring of 1991, we administered questionnaires to
randomly selected samples of 493 cadets, representing all four
classes then at the Academy, and 157 faculty members.  We also
administered a questionnaire to 52 members of the Commandant's staff
(all Air Officers Commanding and those officers charged with
formulating policy for the Cadet Wing), 7 chaplains, and
6 counselors.  The questionnaires covered a range of student-related
subjects, including the treatment of women and minorities.  A
detailed description of the questionnaire and related methodological
issues appears in appendix II. 

The performance indicator data we used to make gender and racial
group comparisons covered a spectrum of student experiences, from
application through graduation.  The available data varied in the
time periods covered.  Some data were available by class year, some
by academic year, and some from secondary sources. 

We discussed with Academy officials the indicators that would best
capture cadet performance.  On the basis of these discussions, we
selected the following indicators. 

  -- Admissions data:  (1) the percentage of eligible candidates who
     received offers from the Academy and (2) the academic admissions
     scores of those entering the Academy. 

  -- Performance data:  (1) the academic cumulative grade point
     average, which is the numeric average of academic course grades
     achieved by a cadet; (2) the military performance average, which
     is the numeric average of grades achieved by a cadet through
     semester evaluations of military performance and of aptitude for
     commissioned service; (3) representation in cadet leadership
     positions, ranging from sergeant to colonel; and (4) physical
     fitness scores on a test composed of five events:  pull-ups, the
     standing long jump, sit-ups, push-ups, and the 600-yard run. 

  -- Adjudicatory system data:  the rate at which cadets appeared
     before the Academy's honor, academic, and conduct adjudicatory
     systems\5 and the outcomes. 

  -- Graduation data:  (1) the attrition rate (the rate at which
     cadets separate from the Academy) and reasons for attrition; (2)
     the graduation rate, or the rate at which cadets satisfactorily
     complete the academic, aptitude, conduct, athletic, and military
     training requirements and receive a degree; and (3) class
     standing, or the ranking of cadets at graduation, based on the
     weighted combination of 70-percent academic grade point average
     and 30-percent military performance average. 

We used statistical significance tests and a rule of thumb based on
comparisons of subgroup percentages (called the "four-fifths test")
to assess whether any observed gender or racial disparities were
significant.  A detailed description of the kinds of performance
indicators used, the source of that data, and the types of tests used
to assess differences appears in appendix III. 

To assess whether any regularity existed with regard to the direction
of observed differences, we identified the number of times each
subgroup was lower or higher on each measure for each period we
examined.  We then considered the likelihood of getting that observed
distribution of lows and highs if there were no systematic
differences between the subgroups. 

As requested, we did not obtain fully coordinated Department of
Defense comments on this report.  However, we did discuss a draft of
this report with senior officials from the Academy and cognizant
officials of the Air Force and the Office of the Secretary of
Defense.  They suggested a number of technical clarifications, which
have been incorporated in this report, and indicated that the Academy
was taking actions in line with most of our recommendations. 

We performed our review from January 1991 to June 1993 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards. 


--------------------
\4 See also Naval Academy:  Gender and Racial Disparities
(GAO/NSIAD-93-54, Apr.  30, 1993). 

\5 The Academy has three other adjudicatory systems:  the Military
Review Committee, the Summer Training Review Committee, and the
Physical Education Review Committee.  However, there were too few
cases handled by the Military Review Committee and the Physical
Education Review Committee to adequately analyze case data. 
Additionally, we did not analyze data for the Summer Training Review
Committee. 


ACADEMY INDICATORS REVEAL GENDER
DISPARITIES
============================================================ Chapter 2

Male and female cadets' performance was mixed across the full set of
indicators.  On average, women have not fared as well as men in their
admissions qualification rates and their physical fitness test
scores.  In addition, women had higher attrition rates than men did,
and proportionately fewer women were in the top 15 percent of their
graduating classes.  On the other hand, men received proportionately
fewer admissions offers than women and had lower academic admissions
scores.  Nearly all the women and most of the men we surveyed at the
Academy perceived that women were treated the same as men. 


   CADETS' PERCEPTIONS OF THE
   TREATMENT OF WOMEN
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:1

In our questionnaire, we asked respondents to indicate whether they
believed that women were treated better than, the same as, or worse
than men by faculty, air officers commanding, disciplinary boards,
honor boards, and academic boards. 

Between 82 and 89 percent of female cadets and 49 and 65 percent of
male cadets believed that women were treated the same as men by these
various groups.  Less than 10 percent of female cadets and less than
5 percent of male cadets believed that women were treated worse than
men by any of these groups.  Between 34 and 48 percent of male
respondents believed that female cadets received preferential
treatment, but only 10 percent of the female respondents shared that
perception (see fig.  2.1). 

   Figure 2.1:  Cadets'
   Perceptions of the Treatment of
   Women by Various Academy Groups

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  Responses to GAO questionnaire. 


   PERFORMANCE INDICATORS FOR MALE
   AND FEMALE CADETS SHOW MIXED
   RESULTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:2

Overall, as summarized in table 2.1, we made gender comparisons
across 12 indicators, covering various areas of Academy performance. 
In 2 of the 12 indicators, significance tests consistently showed
that women did better:  offer rates and academic admissions scores. 
In 3 of the 12 indicators, significance tests consistently showed
that men did better:  qualification rates, physical fitness scores,
and attrition rates.  In four indicators, comparisons show mixed
results:  academic grade point averages, cumulative military
performance averages, Academic Board review and separation rates, and
class standings.  A discussion of these indicators and our analysis
follow. 



                                    Table 2.1
                     
                          Summary of Gender Comparisons

                                            Comparison  Comparison
                                                s that      s that   Comparisons
                                 Number of      showed      showed   that showed
Performance                     comparison  that women    that men       men and
indicator       Data available           s  did better  did better   women equal
--------------  --------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ------------
Qualification   Classes of               5       0 (0)     5 (5\a)             0
 rates (see      1991-95
 fig. 2.2)
Offer rates     Classes of               5     5 (5\a)       0 (0)             0
 (see fig.       1991-95
 2.3)
Academic        Classes of               7     7 (4\b)       0 (0)             0
 admissions      1988-94
 scores (see
 fig. 2.4)
Academic grade  Classes of              40    17 (7\b)   21 (11\b)             2
 point           1988-92
 averages by
 semester (see
 fig. 2.5)
Physical        Classes of               5       0 (0)     5 (4\b)             0
 fitness         1988-92
 scores (see
 fig. 2.6)
Cumulative      Classes of              40    22 (0\b)    15 (3\b)             3
 military        1988-92
 performance
 averages by
 semester (see
 fig. 2.7)
Cadet           Classes of               5         2\c         3\c             0
 leadership      1988-92
 positions
 (see text)
Rates of        Academic years           1     0 (0\a)     0 (0\a)             1
 conduct         1987-89
 review (see
 text)
Honor charge    Academic years           4     4 (0\a)       0 (0)             0
 and             1987-89
 conviction
 rates
 (see text)
Academic Board  Academic years           4     1 (1\a)     3 (1\a)             0
 review and      1987-89
 separation
 rates (see
 text)
Attrition       Classes of              13     2 (0\a)    11 (7\a)             0
 rates (see      1980-92
 fig. 2.8)
Class           Classes of              10     4 (0\a)     6 (2\a)             0
 standings       1988-92
 (see text)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  ( ) indicates the number of significant differences using one
or both types of tests. 

\a We used both a statistical significance and the 4/5s test for
these comparisons. 

\b We used a statistical significance test for these comparisons. 

\c We were unable to test significance due to data limitations. 


      QUALIFICATION RATES AND
      ADMISSIONS OFFERS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:2.1


         QUALIFICATION RATES WERE
         HIGHER FOR MEN
------------------------------------------------------ Chapter 2:2.1.1

Admission standards, with the exception of some allowances for
physical differences, are the same for women and men.  For the
classes of 1991 to 1995, male applicants were eligible at a higher
rate than were female applicants.  Female applicants were eligible
about 18 percent of the time, while male applicants were eligible
about 28 percent of the time (five gender comparisons, one for each
of five classes).\1 The higher rate for men was significant for all
the classes, as shown in figure 2.2. 

   Figure 2.2:  Qualification
   Rates for Men and Women

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  All differences were significant using one or more tests. 

Source:  GAO analysis of Academy records. 


--------------------
\1 For presentation purposes, we do not always illustrate each
comparison that we made because the pattern across semesters or class
years was often similar.  When we made comparisons for multiple years
or semesters, we parenthetically note the numbers of comparisons we
made. 


      WOMEN RECEIVED ADMISSIONS
      OFFERS AT HIGHER RATES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:2.2

Academy data indicate that for the classes of 1991 to 1995, 66
percent of the eligible female applicants received offers of
admission from the Academy, while only 52 percent of the eligible
male applicants did (five gender comparisons, one for each of five
classes).  The higher rate for women was significant for all the
classes, as shown in figure 2.3. 

   Figure 2.3:  Rates at Which
   Male and Female Eligible
   Candidates Received Offers

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  All differences were significant using one or more tests. 

Source:  GAO analysis of Academy records. 


      ACADEMIC ADMISSIONS SCORES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:2.3

Our review of the classes of 1988 through 1994 showed that the
average academic admissions scores of female cadets were consistently
higher than those of male cadets (see fig.  2.4).  This analysis
involved seven comparisons, one for each of seven classes.  The
scholastic prediction system used in the Academy's admissions process
is aimed at identifying applicants most likely to perform well there. 
The minimum composite admissions score for entrance is 2700.  This
score is calculated on the basis of academic performance (60
percent); extracurricular activities (20 percent); and faculty and
staff review, a fitness test, a Liaison Officer interview, and a
writing sample review (20 percent).  Since women tended to have
higher admissions scores, we would expect that for these classes, on
average, women would be more successful at the Academy than men. 

   Figure 2.4:  Average Female and
   Male Academic Admissions Scores

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

\a Difference was significant using one or more tests. 

Source:  GAO analysis of Academy records. 


      MILITARY AND ACADEMIC
      PERFORMANCE AND PHYSICAL
      FITNESS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:2.4

In general, we found the following: 

  -- Over cadets' entire 4-year period at the Academy, women's grade
     point averages were slightly lower than men's.  However, while
     female cadets generally received lower academic grade point
     averages than male cadets did during their early years, the
     opposite pattern generally existed in their junior and senior
     years. 

  -- Women had lower physical fitness test scores than men did. 

  -- In military performance, female cadets received grades generally
     comparable to those of male cadets. 

  -- Female representation in cadet military leadership positions
     reflected their class representation. 


      ACADEMIC GRADES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:2.5

In the classes of 1988 through 1992, female cadets generally received
lower cumulative academic grade point averages than male cadets
during their freshman and sophomore years at the Academy.  This
analysis involved comparisons for 8 semesters for 5 classes, totaling
40 comparisons.  The semester grades for the five classes have been
combined in figure 2.5 for illustrative purposes.  As shown in the
figure, women got better grades in their junior and senior years. 

   Figure 2.5:  Male and Female
   Cadets' Grade Point Averages
   for the Classes of 1988 Through
   1992

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  All differences were significant using one or more tests. 

Source:  GAO analysis of Academy records. 

To assess whether the observed differences between the academic
performance of male and female cadets were due to differences in
academic potential that existed at the time they entered the Academy,
we performed a series of regression analyses.\2 For the classes of
1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, and 1992, we ran regression analyses on the
cadets' cumulative grade point averages at the end of each of their
eight semesters.  Entrance predictor composite scores\3 were entered
into the regression equation as the first step, with race entered as
a second step, and gender added as a third step.  All three variables
were entered in each equation, regardless of any other criteria so
that the direction of the relationship could be determined.  This
resulted in 40 separate regression analyses (8 for each of the 5
classes) where the independent effect of gender could be assessed. 

Overall, the Academy's entrance predictor composite scores were able
to account for a relatively low proportion (23 percent to 35 percent)
of the total variation in semester grade point averages.  After
controlling for differences in entrance predictor composite scores,
gender still explained a small (0.2 percent to 2.2 percent) but
statistically significant (at the 95-percent level of confidence)
proportion of the variance in grade point averages in 34 of the 40
regression analyses.  All 40 regression coefficients were negative
and ranged from -0.03 to -0.22.  The average regression coefficient
for gender across the 40 regressions was about -0.13, meaning that
the grade point average of a female cadet averaged 0.13 lower than
than of a male cadet of the same race with a comparable entrance
predictor composite score.  Thus, gender was correlated with academic
performance beyond the difference that could be explained by
differences in entrance predictor composite scores. 


--------------------
\2 A regression analysis is a statistical technique that allows the
effects of multiple predictor variables to be simultaneously
assessed.  By entering the predictor variables into the regression
analysis in separate steps, the unique contribution of a predictor
variable to the variation in a criterion variable can be determined
while the effects of all other measured predictor variables are
controlled. 

\3 We used the composite scores as an independent variable in this
analysis because they are the main indicator that Academy officials
use to predict academic success.  We did not examine the development
of this measure, and we make no assumptions about its validity in the
admissions process. 


      PHYSICAL FITNESS GRADES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:2.6

Physical education standards at the Academy were derived on the basis
of the historical achievement of separate gender groups over time, as
they are intended to compensate for the physiological differences
between men and women.  For example, the minimum standard for
pull-ups for male cadets is seven, while the standard for female
cadets is one; these standards recognize males' greater upper body
strength.  The minimum standard for sit-ups for male cadets is 58,
while the standard for female cadets is 60; these standards take into
account females' greater abdominal strength.  Males must run 600
yards in 2:03 minutes; women in 2:23 minutes.  Males must complete a
long jump of 7 feet; women must jump
5 feet, 9 inches.  Narrative responses to our questionnaire revealed
that some male cadets perceived the physical fitness test standards
as favoring females. 

Despite this perception of favoritism, the average physical education
grades for the women in the classes of 1988 through 1992 were
consistently lower than those of their male counterparts.  (See fig. 
2.6.) To pass the physical fitness test, which is composed of five
athletic events, a cadet must accumulate at least 250 points and meet
the minimum standards established for each of the five athletic
events.  Meeting the minimum standards alone results in a score of
only 139 points, so a cadet must surpass the minimum standards in
some events to attain a passing score.  A cadets who fails the
fitness test is reviewed by the Physical Education Review Committee,
placed on athletic probation, and assigned to a physical
reconditioning program. 

   Figure 2.6:  Males' and
   Females' Average Physical
   Fitness Test Scores

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

\a Difference was significant using one or more tests.

Source:  GAO analysis of Academy records. 


      WOMEN'S MILITARY PERFORMANCE
      WAS COMPARABLE TO MEN'S
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:2.7

For the classes of 1988 through 1992, female cadets' military
performance averages were comparable to those of male cadets (gender
comparisons for 8 semesters for 5 classes, totaling 40).  Female and
male cadets' averages varied slightly with each class's progression
through the Academy.  Females' averages were usually slightly lower
than those of male cadets during their freshman and sophomore years
but slightly exceeded them during their junior and senior years (see
fig.  2.7). 

   Figure 2.7:  Males' and
   Females' Cumulative Military
   Performance Averages for the
   Classes of 1988 Through 1992

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

\a Difference was significant using one or more tests. 

Source:  GAO analysis of Academy records. 



      WOMEN WERE PROPORTIONATELY
      REPRESENTED IN LEADERSHIP
      POSITIONS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:2.8

Cadets assume leadership positions beginning in their junior year. 
For wing-level or group-level positions, cadets are interviewed by a
board of officers and senior noncommissioned officers prior to
selection.  Record reviews are conducted to ensure credibility, and
potential capabilities must have been demonstrated prior to the
interview.  For squadron-level positions, cadet squadron commanders
are selected by their Air Officers Commanding.  The cadet squadron
commander then makes the selections for the top three positions and
reviews the selections for the remaining squadron positions.  All
squadron positions are subject to approval by the Air Officer
Commanding.  According to Academy officials, cadets generally hold
only one leadership position (wing, group, or squadron level) but in
some cases can hold more than one. 

For the classes of 1988 through 1992, female cadets were represented
in cadet leadership positions in proportion to their representation
in their senior class.  (We selected senior class leadership
representation for comparison because, according to Academy
officials, seniors hold the key leadership positions.) The 5-year
average for female representation in cadet leadership positions
(lieutenant and above) was 12 percent, while female representation in
their classes was also 12 percent.  This analysis involved five
comparisons, one for each of the 5 years for which data were
available. 


      CONDUCT, HONOR, AND ACADEMIC
      REVIEW SYSTEMS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:2.9

Gender-based differences also existed in the disposition of cases
reviewed by two of three adjudicatory systems (conduct, honor, and
academic).\4 In terms of the numbers of cases processed by the
systems and the case outcomes, female cadets generally fared about
the same as male cadets did in the conduct system, better in the
honor system, and worse in the academic review system. 


--------------------
\4 Between the fall of 1987 and the spring of 1990, both the Military
Review Committee and the Physical Education Review Committee reviewed
too few cases to allow for analyses of any gender-based differences. 


         MEN AND WOMEN REVIEWED
         FOR CONDUCT AT EQUAL
         RATES
------------------------------------------------------ Chapter 2:2.9.1

For academic years 1987-89, female and male cadets fared about the
same in the conduct review process.  During this period, the
Commandant's Disciplinary Board reviewed 146 cases.  The rate of
review (that is, the number of cases as a percentage of the female or
male population) was about 1.1 percent for both men and women. 


         WOMEN ACCUSED AND
         CONVICTED OF HONOR
         OFFENSES AT LOWER RATES
         THAN MEN
------------------------------------------------------ Chapter 2:2.9.2

Overall, female cadets fared better than male cadets did throughout
the honor system.  The differences in review outcome rates, however,
were not significant in any of the comparisons.  For academic years
1987-89, the honor system reviewed 812 cases in which cadets had been
accused of honor code offenses.  Of these cases, 94 involved female
cadets, and 718 involved male cadets. 

Female cadets were accused of honor offenses at a slightly lower rate
than were male cadets:  5.3 percent versus 6 percent.\5

Female cadets also fared better than male cadets in the Honor
Investigative Panel process.  The Panel forwarded to the Wing Honor
Board about 45 percent of the female cadet cases it reviewed,
compared to about 52 percent of the male cadet cases. 

In the cases reviewed by the Wing Honor Board, female cadets again
fared better than male cadets.  The Wing Honor Board found cadets in
violation of the Honor Code in 40 percent of the female cases, versus
about 43 percent of the male cases.  Similarly, female cadets fared
better than male cadets in the percentage of cases forwarded to the
Honor Sanctions Board.  This Board recommended disenrollment in about
27 percent of cases involving female cadets, versus about 30 percent
of cases involving male cadets. 


--------------------
\5 The rate is defined as the number of cadets accused of honor
violations as a percentage of the cadet subgroup (for example, female
or male) population for the time period studied. 


         WOMEN GENERALLY FARED
         WORSE IN ACADEMIC REVIEW
         SYSTEM
------------------------------------------------------ Chapter 2:2.9.3

Female cadets fared worse than male cadets did in the earlier two
stages of the academic review process but fared better at the Academy
Board stage.  Our review encompassed academic years 1987-89.\6 During
that time period, the academic review system reviewed 904 cases in
which cadets' academic performance was below Academy standards.  Of
these cases, 159 involved female cadets (about 18 percent), and 745
involved male cadets (about 82 percent). 

The Academic Review Committee reviewed proportionately more female
cadet cases than male cadet cases:  about 6 percent versus about 4
percent.\7 The female cadets' significantly higher review ratio may
be related to their lower academic grade point averages.  Again,
according to Academy officials, the higher review rate for female
cadets may be partly explained by the greater percentage of female
cadets who were involved in time-consuming extracurricular activities
such as varsity athletics.  Female cadets also fared slightly worse
than male cadets in terms of the numbers of cases forwarded by the
Academic Review Committee to the Academy Board:  34 percent versus
about 30 percent.  While women's rate was higher, this difference was
not significant. 

While female cadets' cases were reviewed at higher rates than those
of their male counterparts, women fared better at the Academy Board
review stage.  The Board recommended disenrollment in about 43
percent of the cases involving female cadets, compared to about 56
percent of the cases involving male cadets.  This percentage
represents a significantly lower rate for women.  Despite this lower
rate, however, less than 1 percent of male or female cadets were
disenrolled for academic reasons (0.7 percent of men and 0.9 percent
of women). 


--------------------
\6 Academic Review Committee data for the classes of 1988 and 1989
were unavailable; the Academy retains such data for only 1 year
following a class's graduation. 

\7 The rate is defined as the number of cadet cases reviewed by the
Committee as a percentage of the cadet subgroup (for example, female
or male) population for the time period studied. 


      WOMEN HAD HIGHER ATTRITION
      RATES
------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:2.10

For the classes of 1980 through 1992, proportionately more female
cadets than male cadets left the Academy before graduating.  For all
classes, averaged together, about 40 percent of the female cadets
left before graduating, compared to about 33 percent of the male
cadets.  For 7 of the 13 classes, the differences in attrition rates
were significant (see.  fig.  2.8).  This analysis involved 1 gender
comparison for each of the 13 classes, totaling 13 comparisons. 

   Figure 2.8:  Male and Female
   Attrition Rates

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

\a Difference was significant using one or more tests. 

Source:  GAO analysis of Academy records. 

While the number of both female and male cadets who leave the Academy
declined significantly over their 4-year period at the Academy, women
generally left the Academy slightly later than men did.  For example,
for the classes of 1988 through 1992, 54 percent of all women who
left the Academy did so in their freshman year, compared with 64
percent of the men.  During their sophomore year, 28 percent of the
female attrition took place, compared with 20 percent of the male
attrition. 


      FEWER WOMEN GRADUATED IN THE
      TOP 15 PERCENT OF THEIR
      CLASSES
------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:2.11

In the classes of 1988-92, the percentages of female and male cadets
in the top halves of their graduating classes were essentially equal
(49.9 percent of males and 50.9 percent of females).  However, in
four of the five graduating classes, a smaller percentage of female
cadets than male cadets graduated in the top 15 percent of their
classes.  For the classes of 1988 and 1990, these percentages were
significantly smaller.  This analysis involved two gender comparisons
for each of the classes, totaling
10 comparisons. 

Class standings are important because they determine selection
preference for flight school and because graduates in the top 15
percent of each class are given preference for future graduate
education. 


ACADEMY INDICATORS REVEAL RACIAL
DISPARITIES
============================================================ Chapter 3

On average, minorities had comparable physical fitness scores but
lower academic admissions scores, academic grade point averages, and
military performance averages.  Minorities were also subjected to
proportionately more academic and honor reviews than whites were. 
Minority cadets had higher attrition rates, and proportionately fewer
minority cadets were either in the top 50 percent or the top 15
percent of their graduating classes.  The differences in these
indicators were often significant.  The majority of cadets who
responded to our questionnaire perceived that minorities were treated
the same as whites. 


   CADETS' PERCEPTIONS OF THE
   TREATMENT OF MINORITIES
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:1

In our questionnaire, we asked respondents to indicate whether they
believed minorities were treated better than, the same as, or worse
than whites by faculty, air officers commanding, disciplinary boards,
honor boards, and academic boards.  The majority of both white and
minority cadets believed that minorities were treated the same as
whites at the Academy.  However, white cadets were more likely than
minorities to perceive minority cadets as receiving preferential
treatment.  In addition, minorities were more likely than whites to
perceive minority cadets as receiving less favorable treatment (see
fig.  3.1). 

   Figure 3.1:  Cadets'
   Perceptions of the Treatment of
   Minorities by Various Academy
   Groups

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  Responses to GAO questionnaire. 


   MAJORITY OF PERFORMANCE
   INDICATORS SHOWED WHITES DID
   BETTER
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2

Overall, as summarized in table 3.1, we made racial comparisons
across
12 indicators, covering various areas of Academy performance.  In 7
of the
12 indicators, significance tests consistently showed that whites did
better:  qualification rates, academic admissions scores, academic
grade point averages, cumulative military performance grades,
Academic Board review and separation rates, attrition rates, and
class standings.  In only one of the indicators--offer rates--did
significance tests clearly show that minorities did better.  In three
indicators, comparisons showed mixed results:  physical fitness
scores, rates of conduct review, and honor charge and conviction
rates.  A discussion of these indicators and our analysis follow. 



                                    Table 3.1
                     
                          Summary of Racial Comparisons

                                            Comparison  Comparison
                                                s that      s that   Comparisons
                                                showed      showed   that showed
                                 Number of        that        that    minorities
Performance       Data          comparison  minorities  whites did    and whites
indicator         available              s  did better      better         equal
----------------  ------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ------------
Qualification     Classes of             5       0 (0)     5 (5\a)             0
 rates (see fig.   1991-95
 3.2)
Offer rates (see  Classes of             5     5 (5\a)       0 (0)             0
 fig. 3.3)         1991-95
Academic          Classes of             7       0 (0)     7 (7\b)             0
 admissions        1988-94
 scores (see
 fig. 3.4)
Academic grade    Classes of            40       0 (0)   40 (40\b)             0
 point averages,   1988-92
 by semester
 (see fig. 3.5)
Physical fitness  Classes of             5     3 (1\b)     2 (0\b)             0
 scores (see       1988-92
 fig. 3.6)
Cumulative        Classes of            40     1 (0\b)   39 (18\b)             0
 military          1988-92
 performance
 grades, by
 semester (see
 fig. 3.7)
Cadet leadership  Classes of             5           0           0             5
 positions (see    1988-92
 text)
Rates of conduct  Academic               1     1 (0\a)       0 (0)             0
 review (see       years 1987-
 text)             89
Honor charge and  Academic               4     1 (1\a)     3 (2\a)             0
 conviction        years 1987-
 rates (see        89
 text)
Academic Board    Academic               4     1 (0\a)     3 (3\a)             0
 review and        years 1987-
 separation        89
 rates (see
 text)
Attrition rates   Classes of            13     1 (0\a)    12 (4\a)             0
 (see fig. 3.8)    1980-92
Class standings   Classes of            10       0 (0)   10 (10\a)             0
 (see text)        1988-91
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  ( ) indicates the number of significant differences using one
or both types of tests. 

\a We used both a statistical significance and the 4/5s test for
these comparisons. 

\b We used a statistical significance test for these comparisons. 


      QUALIFICATION AND OFFER
      RATES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2.1


         QUALIFICATION RATES WERE
         HIGHER FOR WHITES
------------------------------------------------------ Chapter 3:2.1.1

Admissions standards are the same for minorities and whites.  For the
classes of 1991 through 1995, a lower percentage of the minorities
who applied to the Academy were deemed eligible.  Specifically,
during these years, about 28 percent of all white applicants, but
only about 18 percent of minority applicants were determined to be
qualified (five comparisons, one for each class).\1 The higher rate
for whites was significant for all the classes, as shown in figure
3.2. 

   Figure 3.2:  Qualification
   Rates for Whites and Minorities

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  All differences were significant using one or more tests. 

Source:  GAO analysis of Academy records. 


--------------------
\1 For presentation purposes, we do not always illustrate each
comparison that we made because the pattern across semesters or class
years was often similar.  When we made comparisons for multiple years
or semesters, we parenthetically note the numbers of comparisons we
made. 


      OFFER RATES WERE HIGHER FOR
      MINORITIES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2.2

Academy data indicate that for the classes of 1991 through 1995,
76 percent of the eligible minority applicants received offers from
the Air Force Academy but only 51 percent of the eligible white
applicants did so (five comparisons, one for each of five classes). 
The higher rate for minorities was significant for all the classes,
as shown in figure 3.3. 

   Figure 3.3:  Rates at Which
   Eligible White and Minority
   Candidates Received Offers

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  All differences were significant using one or more tests. 

Source:  GAO analysis of Academy records. 


      MINORITIES HAD LOWER
      ACADEMIC ADMISSIONS SCORES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2.3

Our review of the classes of 1988 through 1994 showed that the
average academic admissions scores of qualified minority cadets were
consistently lower than those of white cadets (see fig.  3.4).  This
analysis involved seven comparisons, one for each of seven classes. 

   Figure 3.4:  Average Academic
   Admissions Scores for
   Minorities and Whites

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  All differences were significant using one or more tests. 

Source:  GAO analysis of Academy records. 


      MINORITIES HAD LOWER
      ACADEMIC AND MILITARY
      PERFORMANCE GRADES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2.4

Consistent with Academy success predictors, the academic performance
grades of minorities were below those of whites.  Minorities'
military performance grades were also below those of whites. 
However, minority cadets received higher physical fitness scores in
three of the five classes we reviewed.  Also, minority representation
in cadet military leadership positions was proportionate to their
representation in their classes. 


      MINORITIES' ACADEMIC GRADES
      WERE LOWER THAN THOSE OF
      WHITES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2.5

Minority cadets in the classes of 1988 through 1992 consistently
received lower grade point averages than white cadets did.  This is
consistent with Academy officials' view of the predictability of
academic admissions scores.  Specifically, cadets who enter the
Academy with lower academic admissions scores (as was the case with
minority cadets) would not be expected to fare as well academically
as those who enter with higher scores. 

In contrast to the differences between female and male cadets' grade
point averages, the differences between minority and white cadets'
grades did not change as each class progressed through the Academy. 
This analysis involved comparisons for eight semesters for five
classes, totaling
40 comparisons.  The semester grades for the five classes have been
combined in figure 3.5. 

   Figure 3.5:  Grade Point
   Averages of Minority and White
   Cadets for the Classes of 1988
   Through 1992

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  All differences were significant using one or more tests. 

Source:  GAO analysis of Academy records. 

To assess whether the observed differences between the academic
performance of white and minority cadets were due to differences in
academic potential that existed at the time they entered the Academy,
we performed a series of regression analyses.\2 For the classes of
1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, and 1992, we ran regression analyses on the
cadets' cumulative grade point averages at the end of each of their
eight semesters.  Entrance predictor composite scores\3 were entered
into the regression equation as the first step, with gender entered
as a second step, and race\4 entered as a third step.  All three
variables were entered in each equation regardless of any other
criteria so that the direction of the relationship could be
determined.  This resulted in 40 separate regression analyses (8 for
each of the 5 classes) where the independent effect of race could be
assessed. 

Overall, the Academy's entrance predictor composite scores were able
to account for a relatively low proportion (23 percent to 35 percent)
of the total variation in semester grade point averages.  After
controlling for differences in entrance predictor scores, race
explained a small (0.2 percent to 2.0 percent) but statistically
significant (at the 95-percent level of confidence) proportion of the
variance in grade point averages in all 40 regression analyses.  All
40 regression coefficients were negative and ranged from -0.08 to
-0.19.  The average regression coefficient for race across the 40
regressions was about -0.14, meaning that the grade point average of
a minority cadet averaged 0.14 lower than that of a white cadet of
the same gender with a comparable entrance predictor composite score. 
Thus, race was correlated with academic performance beyond the
difference that could be explained by differences in entrance
predictor composite scores. 


--------------------
\2 A regression analysis is a statistical technique that allows the
effects of multiple predictor variables to be simultaneously
assessed.  By entering the predictor variables into the regression
analysis in separate steps, the unique contribution of a predictor
variable to the variation in a criterion variable can be determined
while the effects of all other measured predictor variables are
controlled. 

\3 We used the composite scores as an independent variable in this
analysis because they are the main indicator that Academy officials
use to predict academic success.  We did not examine the development
of this measure, and we make no assumptions about its validity in the
admissions process. 

\4 Race was coded into two groups:  minorities (including blacks,
Hispanics, Asians, and Native Americans) and whites. 


      MINORITIES HAD HIGHER
      PHYSICAL FITNESS SCORES IN
      THREE OF FIVE CLASSES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2.6

For the graduates of the classes of 1988 through 1992, minorities had
better physical fitness test scores than whites in three of the five
classes (see fig.  3.6).  As stated in chapter 2, all cadets are
required to take and pass (with at least 250 points) the physical
fitness test, which is composed of five athletic events. 

   Figure 3.6:  Average Physical
   Fitness Scores for Whites and
   Minorities

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

\a Difference was significant using one or more tests. 

Source:  GAO analysis of Academy records. 


      MINORITIES HAD LOWER
      MILITARY PERFORMANCE GRADES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2.7

In reviewing 40 semesters of military performance data for the
classes of 1988 through 1992, we found that the cumulative military
performance averages of minority cadets were generally lower than
those of white cadets (comparisons for 8 semesters for 5 classes,
totaling 40).  An Academy official stated that the distribution of
military performance grades should be even for all cadet subgroups. 
Accordingly, minority cadets should fare as well as white cadets in
this area.  The data, however, demonstrated otherwise (see fig. 
3.7). 

   Figure 3.7:  Whites' and
   Minorities' Cumulative Military
   Performance Averages for the
   Classes of 1988 Through 1992

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  All differences were significant using one or more tests. 

Source:  GAO analysis of Academy records. 


      MINORITIES WERE
      PROPORTIONATELY REPRESENTED
      IN LEADERSHIP POSITIONS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2.8

Minority cadets in the classes of 1988 through 1992 were represented
in cadet leadership positions in proportion to their representation
in their senior classes.  For example, the 5-year average for
minority representation in cadet leadership positions (lieutenant and
above) was 13 percent, while minority representation in the class as
a whole was also 13 percent.  This analysis involved five
comparisons, one for each of the 5 years for which data was
available. 


      CONDUCT, HONOR, AND ACADEMIC
      REVIEW SYSTEMS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2.9

Minority status-based differences did exist in the disposition of
cases reviewed by two of three adjudicatory systems that we reviewed
(conduct, honor, and academic).  Minority cadets fared
proportionately worse overall than did white cadets in both the honor
and academic review processes and about the same in the conduct
system. 


      WHITES AND MINORITIES
      REVIEWED FOR CONDUCT AT
      EQUAL RATES
------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2.10

For academic years 1987-89, minority and white cadets fared about the
same in the conduct review process.  The rate of review by the
Commandant's Disciplinary Board (that is, the number of cases as a
percentage of the minority or white population) was 1.06 percent for
whites and 1.04 percent for minorities.  This analysis involved one
comparison for the classes of 1988 through 1990. 


      MINORITIES WERE ACCUSED AND
      CONVICTED OF HONOR OFFENSES
      AT A HIGHER RATE THAN WHITES
------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2.11

Minority cadets fared worse in the earlier stages of the honor
adjudicatory process but better at the Honor Sanctions Board stage
than white cadets did.  For academic years 1987-89, the honor system
reviewed 812 cases in which cadets had been accused of honor code
offenses.  Of these cases, 157 involved minority cadets, and 655
involved white cadets. 

Minority cadets were accused of honor offenses at a higher rate than
were white cadets:  almost 8 percent versus about 6 percent.\5

Minority cadets also fared relatively worse than white cadets did in
the Honor Investigative Panel process.  The Panel forwarded to the
Wing Honor Board about 62 percent of the minority cadet cases it
reviewed, compared to about 49 percent of the white cadet cases. 
Differences in the rate of accusation and in the percentage of cases
forwarded were both significant. 

In the cases reviewed by the Wing Honor Board, minority cadets again
fared worse than did white cadets, though this difference was not
significant.  The Board found cadets to be in violation of the honor
code in about 48 percent of the minority cases and about 42 percent
of the white cases. 

At the Honor Sanctions Board stage, minority cadets fared better than
white cadets.  After reviewing cases forwarded to it, the Honor
Sanctions Board recommended disenrollment in about 23 percent of the
cases involving minority cadets, compared with about 31 percent of
the cases involving white cadets.  This difference was significant. 


--------------------
\5 The rate is defined as the number of cadets accused of honor
violations as a percentage of the cadet subgroup (for example,
minority or white) population for the time period studied. 


      MINORITIES GENERALLY FARED
      WORSE IN THE ACADEMIC REVIEW
      SYSTEM
------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2.12

As they did in the honor review system, minority cadets fared worse
than white cadets did in the early stages of the academic review
process but fared better at the Academy Board stage.  Our review
included academic years 1987-89.\6 During that time period, the
academic review system reviewed 904 cases in which cadets' academic
performance was below Academy standards.  Of these cases, 311
involved minority cadets, and
593 involved white cadets. 

The Academic Review Committee reviewed 10 percent of minority cadet
cases, compared with 3 percent of white cadet cases.\7 According to
Academy officials, cadets who enter the Academy with lower academic
admissions scores (as was the case with more minority cadets) are not
expected to fare as well academically as those who enter with higher
scores and are expected to be overrepresented in the Academic Review
Committee's caseload. 

Minority cadets also fared worse than white cadets in terms of the
numbers of cases forwarded by the Academic Review Committee to the
Academy Board:  about 37 percent compared with about 28 percent. 
This difference was also significant. 

While minority cadets' cases were reviewed at higher rates than those
of their white counterparts, minority cadets fared better than white
cadets at the Academy Board review stage.  The Academy Board
recommended disenrollment in about 49 percent of the cases involving
minority cadets, compared to about 57 percent of those involving
white cadets.  This difference was not significant, however. 

Despite the Academy Board's lower rate of recommending minorities for
disenrollment, a significantly higher percentage of minority cadets
were academically disenrolled:  1.78 percent of minorities as
compared to 0.53 percent of whites.  This percentage was higher for
minorities because the greater proportion of minority cadets
academically reviewed was not offset by the smaller proportion of
minority cadets recommended for disenrollment by the Academy Board. 


--------------------
\6 Academic Review Committee data for the classes of 1988 and 1989
were unavailable; the Academy retains such data for only 1 year
following a class's graduation. 

\7 The rate is defined as the number of cadet cases reviewed by the
Committee as a percentage of the cadet subgroup (for example,
minority or white) population for the time period studied. 


      ATTRITION RATES
------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2.13

For the classes of 1980 through 1992, proportionately more minority
cadets than white cadets left the Academy before graduating.  For
these
13 classes, about 38 percent of the minority cadets left before
graduating, compared to about 34 percent of the white cadets (see
fig.  3.8). 
This analysis involved 1 comparison for each of the 13 classes,
totaling
13 comparisons.  On a class-by-class basis, the differences were
significant in 4 of the 13 classes. 

   Figure 3.8:  Attrition Rates
   for Minorities and Whites

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

\a Difference was significant using one or more tests. 

Source:  GAO analysis of Academy records. 

While the number of attritions for both minority and white cadets
declined significantly over their 4-year period at the Academy,
minorities generally left the Academy slightly later than whites did. 
For the classes of 1988 through 1992, 59 percent of all minority
cadets who left the Academy did so in their freshman year, compared
to 63 percent of all white cadets.  During their sophomore year, 26
percent of the minorities left the Academy, compared with 20 percent
of the whites. 


      FEWER MINORITIES GRADUATED
      IN THE TOP OF THEIR CLASSES
------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2.14

For the classes of 1988 through 1992, minority cadets were
underrepresented in the top halves and top 15 percent of their
respective graduating classes.  For all five classes, 29 percent of
minority cadets, versus 53 percent of white cadets, graduated in the
top halves of their classes.  Six percent of minority cadets, versus
16 percent of whites, graduated in the top 15 percent of their
classes.  Differences in both the top half and top 15 percent
categories were significant. 

As noted previously, class standings determine selection preference
consideration for flight school, and graduates in the top 15 percent
of their classes are given preference for future graduate education
and/or flight school selection. 


ACADEMY IS ADDRESSING ISSUES
INVOLVING WOMEN AND MINORITIES,
BUT METHODS FOR MONITORING CADETS'
PERFORMANCE ARE NEEDED
============================================================ Chapter 4

Over the past few years, the Academy has taken a number of actions to
address issues that affect women and minorities.  Among these have
been developing courses in human relations and establishing various
officer and cadet councils and committees.  In the spring of 1992,
the Academy's Department of Behavioral Sciences and Leadership
designed and administered a survey to 3,900 students to assess their
attitudes and behaviors toward sexual harassment and racial
discrimination.  In February and March 1993, at the Academy's
request, the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute evaluated
and made recommendations to improve the human relations climate at
the Academy.  Finally, on
May 20, 1993, the Academy's Ad Hoc Committee on Respect and Dignity
issued a report exploring human relations issues at the Academy and
recommending major initiatives to correct the deficiencies it
discovered. 

These actions should help women and minorities succeed at the
Academy.  However, the Academy (1) lacks a consolidated data base of
student performance indicators; (2) has no method of determining
whether significant disparities exist in cadets' performance; and (3)
has not prepared a plan listing specific actions to be taken in
response to deficiencies, dates by which it plans to take these
actions, or measures by which it intends to determine the success of
its actions. 


   REQUIRED COURSES ON HUMAN
   RELATIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:1

Over the past few years, the Academy has developed the following core
curriculum and selected topics in human relations for all classes of
the Cadet Wing: 

  -- During basic cadet training, cadets take one 1-hour class
     session in human relations.  This class covers Department of
     Defense, Air Force, and Cadet Wing regulations on sexual and
     racial harassment and discrimination and on the importance of an
     equitable work environment.  In addition, each spring semester,
     all officers, noncommissioned officers, and cadets who are
     scheduled to teach basic cadet training are required to attend
     preparatory classes.  In these classes, instructors are taught
     how to work with new cadets and how to emphasize sensitivity in
     areas such as harassment, discrimination, and equal treatment. 

  -- During their freshman year, cadets take one 50-minute class
     session in "Human Relations (Stereotypes, Values, and You)."
     During their sophomore year, they take one 50-minute class
     session per semester on sexual harassment.  During their junior
     year, cadets take one 50-minute class session per semester in
     "Human Relations in Leadership." During their senior year, they
     take classes entitled "Professional Relationships" and "The
     Commander's View of Human Relations." All these classes are part
     of the Academy's "Professional Military Training."

  -- In their freshman year, cadets also receive a lesson in
     Behavioral Science 110 on sexual harassment and date rape. 


   SEVERAL GROUPS HAVE BEEN
   ESTABLISHED TO PROMOTE EQUAL
   OPPORTUNITY
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:2

Over the past few years, the Academy has established several
councils, committees, and programs to promote and enhance an equal
opportunity environment: 

  -- The Cadet Counseling and Leadership Development Center is
     staffed by male and female, black and white clinical personnel. 
     Directed by a Deputy Head of the Department of Behavioral
     Sciences, it is responsible for counseling and guiding cadets in
     all areas of human relations and leadership.  In accordance with
     Air Force Academy Regulation 537-37, on the "Cadet Wing Social
     Actions Program," the Center is also responsible for
     investigating complaints involving sexual and racial harassment. 

  -- The Specialist Program is a 40-hour seminar that trains
     commander-selected third-class cadets to be peer counselors. 
     This seminar teaches cadets to resolve human relations problems
     at the lowest level (in the squadron) and promotes their
     recognition of serious issues that need to be brought forward
     for further review and resolution. 

  -- The Cadet Human Relations Council is chaired by the Cadet Vice
     Wing Commander (a senior cadet) and is made up of 12 cadets. 
     Its purposes are to support the Air Force's equal opportunity
     and treatment program and to provide a channel of communication
     through which the Commandant can make cadets aware of policies,
     programs, and problems. 

  -- The Cadet Interaction Committee is chaired by the Vice
     Commandant of Cadets and is made up of 12 members.  The
     Committee's purposes are to summarize input received from the
     Cadet Human Relations Council and other sources sensitive to
     human relations issues and to propose recommendations to the
     Superintendent to facilitate the successful assimilation of
     women and minorities into the Cadet Wing. 

  -- The Professional Interest Council consists of concerned cadets
     and officers who meet regularly to discuss issues affecting the
     assimilation of women into the Cadet Wing, as well as broader
     issues affecting all cadets. 

  -- The Way of Life Committee originally started as a black student
     union.  Membership was later opened to all minority and white
     cadets.  The Committee's purpose is to address social and
     "quality of life" issues that have a direct impact on the
     enrollment and attrition rates of not only minority but also
     female cadets. 


   ACADEMY'S SOCIAL CLIMATE SURVEY
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:3

On March 18, 1992, the Department of Behavioral Sciences and
Leadership administered an attitudinal survey of cadets.  Of the
4,400 cadets in the Wing, approximately 3,900 completed the survey. 
The survey assessed cadets' attitudes and behaviors in four areas: 
sexual harassment, racial discrimination, religious discrimination,
and alcohol use. 

Through its survey, the Academy discovered differences in the
perceptions of its male and female and white and minority cadets. 


      SURVEY FINDINGS ON THE
      RACIAL CLIMATE AT THE
      ACADEMY
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:3.1

According to the attitudinal survey results, cadets perceived a high
degree of racial tolerance, acceptance, and integration at the
Academy.  However, the survey also indicated that equal opportunity
training programs, while popular with black cadets, were unpopular
with white cadets.  Regarding reporting channels, black cadets were
more willing to bypass the chain of command than were white cadets. 

Academy officials reported that, in their view, the survey revealed
that racial problems at the Academy were not of great magnitude. 
Even so, officials concluded that the racial climate could be
improved, especially as it related to the Social Actions programs and
the use of the chain of command. 


      SURVEY FINDINGS RELATED TO
      GENDER ISSUES AT THE ACADEMY
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:3.2

The survey's findings involving gender indicated that there was more
hostility toward female cadets than toward minority ones.  Although
women were seen as effective in leadership roles, they continued to
be the target of sexist jokes or demeaning remarks on a daily basis. 
In addition, the superior/subordinate relationship between male and
female cadets was more than occasionally compromised by their
fraternization. 

The survey also indicated differences in perceptions of the way male
and female cadets were treated.  For example, 52 percent of the male
cadets and 42 percent of the female cadets reported that Air Officers
Commanding did not treat male and female cadets equally.  Fifty-six
percent of male cadets and 65 percent of female cadets reported the
faculty treated males and females equally.  (The wording of the
question did not allow Academy officials to determine whether the
unequal treatment was perceived as better or worse.)


   RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE DEFENSE
   EQUAL OPPORTUNITY MANAGEMENT
   INSTITUTE
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:4

On December 7, 1992, the Commandant of Cadets requested a Staff
Assistance Visit from the Defense Equal Opportunity Management
Institute to assess the quality of human relations training at the
Academy and to help revise the cadet social climate survey.  Between
February 22 and March 1, 1993, a team of three members from the
Institute visited the Academy to perform this evaluation.  After its
evaluation was completed, the team reported its findings and made
recommendations. 

The team's overall conclusion was that the Cadet Wing's human
relations climate was good, "even though personal interviews revealed
sexist and racist attitudes/behaviors and sexual harassment exist in
the cadet environment." The team stated that "Command staff was
knowledgeable of existing human relations problems/incidents and
managing them properly.  However, the existence of sexist and racist
behaviors (e.g., jokes and racially derogatory remarks) if left
unchecked could eventually detract from the Academy's mission."

The team recommended that the Academy take the following actions,
among others: 

  -- Revise the lesson plans in its Professional Development Program
     to remove bias and emphasize the value of diversity. 

  -- Design operating procedures and instructions for the Academy's
     Social Actions program to ensure that it complies with Air Force
     regulations. 

  -- Increase the publicity for and participation of cadets and
     officers in the Academy's human relations councils, committees,
     and clubs. 

  -- Administer another social climate survey after changes have been
     made to the wording of certain questions. 

  -- Continue to hold forums to communicate to the cadet population
     the negative aspects of the polarization of the Academy's
     subgroups from its majority population. 

  -- Sensitize Academy staff members and cadets to the divisive
     impact of demeaning remarks about other groups. 


   ALLEGED SEXUAL ASSAULT PROMPTS
   ACADEMY TO UNDERTAKE
   INITIATIVES
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:5

On February 14, 1993, a female Academy cadet alleged that she was
sexually assaulted by three to five men dressed in civilian clothing. 
The Academy's Superintendent met with female cadets on February 23
and with male cadets on February 25 to discuss the incident.  On
February 24, the Superintendent established an Ad Hoc Committee on
Respect and Dignity, made up of officers and cadets, to determine
whether the reported assault represented an isolated event or was a
symptom of broader and more underlying problems.  Focus groups were
held on March 6 and on April 8 to discuss the human relations climate
at the Academy.  The Superintendent also collected data from female
and male cadets in the form of administered questionnaires.  The
Committee administered questionnaires to 60 staff members. 

Among the many concerns surfaced in the focus groups were that some
cadets perceived that (1) minority celebrations and organizations
devoted to racial/ethnic/gender pride contribute to distrust and a
sense of isolation among minority cadets, (2) human relations
infractions result from "unintentional insensitivity," and (3) there
is a sanctioned quota system ("reverse discrimination") for the
inclusion of female and minority cadets in key leadership positions. 

The Committee's May 20, 1993, report to the Superintendent concluded
that "Some at the Academy have lost sight of the fundamental
necessity of treating others with respect and dignity." Among the
Committee's far-reaching goals for the Academy were to (1) devise a
set of "institutional outcomes" to guide its curriculum, policies,
feedback, and reward structures; (2) reexamine the Academy's division
into three mission elements headed by the Dean of the Faculty for
academics, the Commandant of Cadets for military performance, and the
Director of Athletics for athletic development; and (3) create an
Office of Character Development, which would devise a master plan for
cadets' character development. 


   ACADEMY HAS PREPARED NO
   TIMETABLE FOR RESPONDING TO
   PROBLEMS REVEALED IN SURVEY
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:6

The Academy has taken some actions in response to the social climate
survey's findings and to the Defense Equal Opportunity Management
Institute team's recommendations.  Its recent efforts arising from
allegations of sexual assault show that the Academy is reexamining
its human relations climate.  However, the Academy has not always
prepared a document consolidating a list of all specific actions to
be taken in response to particular recommendations, timetables for
these actions, or ways to measure the Academy's actions over time. 
Without such a plan, the Academy cannot systematically correct
deficiencies or measure its progress in doing so. 


   ACADEMY LACKS CONSOLIDATED DATA
   BASE FOR TRACKING DISPARITIES
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:7

During our review, we experienced many difficulties in collecting
Academy data on cadets' performance.  We began by gathering data from
various Academy sources.  Some information was available in the form
of computer disks; other information was available only in hard-copy
form.  Thus, to analyze the data by class, gender, and race, we had
to go through a series of steps to merge data bases.  The Academy had
no consolidated data base on cadets' performance measures. 

The Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute had similar
problems with the Academy's data systems when it did its study.  For
example, in its report, the team noted that the Academy had no
data-capturing systems to track disciplinary and rehabilitative
actions in regard to violations of Air Force Regulation 30-2.  The
team was therefore unable to compare this type of data with similar
Air Force-wide data.  One of the team's recommendations was for the
Academy to consider establishing a system for capturing and tracking
human relations incidents and complaint data. 


   ACADEMY DOES NOT ANALYZE
   DISPARITIES TO DETERMINE
   STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:8

We discussed with Academy officials the various cadet performance
data they collect and how they use it.  According to Academy
officials, they collect and maintain performance data primarily to
identify trends or patterns over time.  However, they do not use
measures such as statistical tests, the four-fifths rule, or
regression analysis to determine when differences in the data may
indicate significant disparities between various groups. 


   CONCLUSIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:9

One of the first steps in dealing with disparities is recognizing
where they exist.  The Academy has taken some steps aimed at ensuring
fair treatment for all cadets.  These steps appear to be positive and
should help to address any disparities.  The recent actions taken by
the Ad Hoc Committee on Respect and Dignity, for example, appear to
represent a major step forward. 

However, for these types of efforts to be most effective, more needs
to be done.  Specifically, during our own work, we encountered
time-consuming difficulties in collecting the needed performance
indicator and adjudicatory data because the Academy had no
standardized, consolidated data base. 

In addition, while the Academy may track cadets' performance data
over time and may discover differences in cadets' performance in
adjudicatory outcomes, it does not apply statistical analyses to
determine which differences are significant and which are not. 
Without applying criteria to these differences, the Academy does not
have sufficient assurance that it is focusing its attention on the
ones meriting further attention. 

Finally, in order to monitor the effectiveness of various actions,
the Academy has not documented the specific actions it has taken or
plans to take in response to recommendations designed to reduce
gender and racial disparities.  Neither has it established timetables
for implementing initiatives or measures to determine these
initiatives' success over time. 


   RECOMMENDATIONS
--------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:10

As part of the Air Force Academy's efforts to ensure the fair and
equal treatment of all cadets and to improve efforts to monitor
gender and racial disparities, we recommend that the Superintendent
of the Air Force Academy

  -- develop a relational data base capability allowing routine
     analysis of key performance indicators;

  -- establish criteria for assessing when disparities warrant more
     in-depth attention and corrective action; and

  -- prepare (1) a plan of action and milestones document to track
     actions taken in response to problems revealed through studies
     or surveys and (2) specific measures with which to assess the
     effectiveness of the Academy's actions over time. 


THE AIR FORCE ACADEMY'S REVIEW
SYSTEMS
=========================================================== Appendix I

As directed by 10 U.S.C.  9351, the Academy Board is responsible for
reviewing cadets' conduct and physical, military, and academic
performance at the Air Force Academy.  The Academy Board consists of
10 senior Air Force officers and is chaired by the Superintendent of
the Academy.  To help carry out its statutory obligation, the Academy
Board has established several committees (see fig.  I.1). 

   Figure I.1:  The Air Force
   Academy's Review Committees

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Note:  The Commandant's
   Disciplinary Board, while not
   an official standing committee
   of the Academy Board, operates
   similarly. 

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

The Academic Review Committee evaluates cadets who are deficient in
academics.  This Committee may recommend that cadets be placed on
remedial plans or academic probation.  It may also refer a cadet
whose academic deficiency demonstrates a lack of aptitude for
commissioned service to the Academy Board for disenrollment or denial
of graduation. 

The Military Review Committee evaluates the records of cadets whose
conduct or aptitude for commissioned service is questionable.  It may
place a cadet on conduct or aptitude probation; refer cadets to the
Academy Board for possible disenrollment; or, in the case of
first-class (senior) cadets, deny or delay graduation. 

The Physical Education Review Committee evaluates cadets whose
physical fitness or performance in physical education or intramural
training is deficient.  It may prescribe corrective measures, refer
cadets to the Academy Board for possible disenrollment, or delay or
deny the graduation of a first-class cadet. 

The Summer Training Review Committee evaluates cadets whose
performance or conduct during cadet summer training programs
demonstrates questionable aptitude for commissioned service.  It may
prescribe corrective measures, refer cadets to the Academy Board for
possible disenrollment, or deny the graduation of a first-class
cadet. 

The Honor Sanctions Board reviews the cases of all cadets found in
violation of the cadet honor code.  It may prescribe corrective
actions or refer cadets to the Academy Board for possible suspension
or disenrollment. 

The cadet disciplinary system is administered by the Commandant of
Cadets, who is an Air Force officer.  The Commandant refers serious
conduct violations to the Commandant's Disciplinary Board.  On the
basis of the Disciplinary Board's recommendations, the Commandant may
either prescribe corrective actions or recommend that cadets be
disenrolled from the Academy. 


DESCRIPTION OF QUESTIONNAIRE
METHODOLOGY
========================================================== Appendix II

This appendix describes our questionnaire development process,
sampling approach, response rates, weighting of data, processing of
completed questionnaires, sampling error, and other methodological
issues.  This report is part of a broader review of the Department of
Defense's service academies.  That review focuses on academics,
military performance measurement, hazing, harassment, and the
operation of academy adjudicatory systems in addition to the
treatment of women and minorities. 


   QUESTIONNAIRE DEVELOPMENT
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:1

We developed questionnaire items to address the full scope of the
broader review.  We pretested the questionnaire with a diverse group
of cadets who represented different classes, genders, and races.  The
questionnaire was also extensively reviewed by (1) Air Force Academy
officials, (2) the Defense Advisory Commission on Women in the
Service, and (3) our consultants familiar with the academies. 


   SAMPLING METHODOLOGY
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:2

To ensure that an adequate number of women and minorities were
included, we used a stratified random sample design allowing us to
oversample those two groups.  We used the last digit of the social
security number to randomly select respondents from each strata.\1

We selected one final digit for all cadets and an additional final
digit for women and minority males.  Our goal was to produce a sample
of about 10 percent of white males, 20 percent of females, and 20
percent of minority males. 


--------------------
\1 The last four digits of social security numbers constitute a
random field based on the order in which individual social security
offices process the applications they receive.  Selecting one final
digit can be expected to yield a sample of about 10 percent. 


   QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE RATES
   AND WEIGHTING OF DATA
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:3

We administered the questionnaires in March 1991.  We assured
respondents of anonymity, and we did not take attendance. 

We received completed questionnaires from 493 Academy cadets (a
response rate of about 91 percent).  Since we oversampled on the
female and minority subgroups, we applied weights to the responses in
order to allow them to represent the total Academy population.  We
computed raw weights by dividing the number of subgroup responses
into the subgroup population. 


   SAMPLING ERROR
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:4

Since we surveyed samples of cadets rather than entire populations,
the results we obtained were subject to some degree of uncertainty,
or "sampling error." Sampling errors represent the expected
difference between our sample results and the results we would have
obtained had we surveyed the entire populations.  Sampling errors are
smallest when the percentage split responding to a particular
question is highly skewed, such as 5 percent responding "yes" and 95
percent responding "no." Sampling errors are greatest when there is
about a 50-50 percentage split in responses. 

On the basis of the number of completed questionnaires, we estimate
that our results can be generalized to the cadet population at the
95-percent confidence level, with a maximum sampling error of plus or
minus 4.3 percent. 

The sampling errors for various subgroups cited in this report appear
in table II.1.  The decimal figures in the table are the sampling
errors that correspond to various percentages of respondents
selecting a particular response alternative.  For example, if we
state that 10 percent of the cadets responded in a given way,
according to the table, the sampling error is
2.8 percent (there was a 10-90 percent response split).  This means
that we can be 95-percent confident that the percentage of cadets
responding that way in the population is within 10 percent plus or
minus 2.8 percent, or between 7.2 percent and 12.8 percent. 



                                    Table II.1
                     
                       Sampling Errors for Various Academy
                                    Subgroups


                                05/  10/  15/  20/  25/  30/  35/  40/  45/  50/
Subgroup    Population  Sample   95   90   85   80   75   70   65   60   55   50
----------  ----------  ------  ---  ---  ---  ---  ---  ---  ---  ---  ---  ---
All cadets       4,354     493  2.2  2.8  3.1  3.4  3.7  3.9  4.1  4.2  4.2  4.3
Men              3,804     379  2.6  3.3  3.8  4.0  4.3  4.5  4.7  4.8  4.9  4.9
Women              550     114  5.2  6.2  7.0  7.6  8.0  8.3  8.3  8.5  8.6  8.6
Whites           3,639     347  2.8  3.5  4.0  4.1  4.5  4.7  4.9  5.1  5.1  5.2
Minorities         715     146  4.5  5.4  6.1  6.6  7.0  7.0  7.3  7.4  7.6  7.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ANALYSIS OF ACADEMY DATA
========================================================= Appendix III


   TYPE AND SOURCES OF DATA
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:1

During our review, we analyzed the computerized records of over
9,900 cadets from the classes of 1988 through 1994.  We converted
this data into a different format for statistical analysis.  We did
not verify the computerized information we obtained from the Academy,
but we did review the reformatted information for accuracy and
reliability.  We then developed data files for each semester and
class.  We developed information on military performance grades,
leadership positions, cumulative and semester academic grade point
averages, attrition, physical education grades, and class standings. 

The Air Force Academy was generally able to provide computerized data
covering the classes of 1988 through 1994.  However, we generally
restricted our analysis to the fully completed classes of 1988
through 1992, the five classes for which we had all 4 years' worth of
data (for freshman through senior years). 

Other kinds of information were not available on any computerized
data base.  Consequently, we extracted data from hard-copy records
maintained by the appropriate Academy body.  The following is a
summary of the types of data and sources we used: 

  -- The Office of Institutional Research provided us with statistics
     on the numbers of applications, qualified applicants, and
     admissions by gender and race/gender for the classes of 1980-93. 

  -- The Academic Review Committee allowed us access to the hard-copy
     files it maintains in the Registrar's Office on Academic Board
     decisions.  We extracted relevant information for all the
     students who appeared before the Academic Board during academic
     years 1987-89. 

  -- Officials in the Commandant of Cadets' Plans and Policies
     Division provided us with hard-copy files on conduct offenses
     charged during academic years 1988-90.  The information
     contained the name of the offender, the dates of the conduct
     board's hearing, the type of offense, and the punishment.  The
     information also included the gender and race/ethnicity of
     offenders. 

  -- The Director of Honor and Ethics provided us with hard-copy
     files containing all honor offense cases charged between March
     1987 and
     May 1990.  The information contained the type of offense, the
     date of the offense, the dates of hearings and decisions, the
     punishment, and the gender and race/ethnicity of the offender. 


   ASSESSMENT OF DISPARITIES
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2

The information we used to compare the various subgroups is
"population data"--that is, it includes every student enrolled in
that class.  Therefore, any observed differences between subgroups
are real differences since there is no sampling error in population
measurements.  However, to avoid misinterpreting the importance of
differences or placing too much emphasis on small numerical
differences, we assessed how substantive any observed differences
were.  In effect, we treated the various populations, such as the
classes of 1988-92, as if they were subpopulations of a larger
population.\1

To assess whether any regularity existed with regard to the direction
of observed differences, we counted the number of times each subgroup
was lower or higher on each measure for each period examined. 

We used various tests to assess whether a given observed gender or
racial disparity was sufficiently large that we could rule out chance
as the cause. 


--------------------
\1 For a discussion of applying statistical significance tests to
population data, see R.  E.  Henkel, Tests of Significance (Beverly
Hills, California:  Sage Publications, 1976), pp.  85-87; and M.  J. 
Hagood, "The Notion of a Hypothetical Universe" in D.  E.  Morrison
and R.  E.  Henkel (eds.), The Significance Test Controversy:  A
Reader (Chicago:  Aldine Publishing Company, 1970). 


      THE "FOUR-FIFTHS" TEST
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2.1

We adopted the "four-fifths" test as one measure of whether an
observed difference between two groups was significant.  This test is
similar to the rule of thumb established by the four federal agencies
responsible for equal employment opportunity enforcement (the
Department of Justice, the Department of Labor, the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission, and the Office of Personnel Management) for
determining whether differences between subgroups in the selection
rates for hiring, promotion, or other employment decisions are
significant.\2

Under the four-fifths test, a selection rate for a subgroup that is
less than four-fifths (or 80 percent) of the rate for the group with
the highest selection rate is considered a substantially different
rate.  We recognize that others have applied the four-fifths test
only to selection rates for actions involving positive consequences. 
However, we judgmentally chose to apply the four-fifths test to both
selection and nonselection indicators (such as academic grades).  We
also chose to transform the four-fifths formula to apply to decisions
involving negative consequences, such as disciplinary, honor offense,
attrition, and academic failure rates.  We used a rate greater than
125 percent (five-fourths) as an indicator of a significantly higher
rate for a negative consequence.  That is, for a negative consequence
(such as an honor conviction), a rate of more than 125 percent of the
rate for the subgroup with the lower rate would be considered a
significantly different rate. 


--------------------
\2 See the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (29
C.F.R.  section 1607).  We recognize that title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, which protects individuals against employment
discrimination, does not apply to the uniformed members of the armed
services.  See Roper v.  Department of the Army, 832 F.2d 247 (2nd
Cir.  1987). 


      CHI-SQUARE TEST
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2.2

For categorical data, such as whether a cadet was charged with an
honor offense or not, we used the chi-square test to assess whether
the difference between subgroup proportions was significant.  We used
the standard 0.05 level of significance, meaning that we accepted a
difference between subgroups as statistically significant if there
was a 5-percent or less chance of getting a difference that large if
there were no real difference between the subgroups. 


      T-TEST
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2.3

For continuous data, such as academic grade point averages, we used
the t-test to assess whether the subgroup means were substantially
different.  We first assessed the variances of each subgroup on each
measure to determine whether or not they were approximately equal. 
If the variances were equal, we used the pooled-variance formula for
the t-test.  If the variances were unequal, we used the
separate-variance formula for the t-test.\3 We used the standard 0.05
probability of error as the criterion for assessing statistical
significance. 


--------------------
\3 SPSS User's Guide, 3rd ed.  (Chicago:  SPSS, Inc., 1988). 


      EACH KIND OF TEST IS
      PROBLEMATIC
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2.4

Both the chi-square and the t-tests are relatively sensitive to
differences under some circumstances, but they are relatively
insensitive under others.  The tests that we used tend to be reactive
to the number of cases.  For example, when few people are subject to
a particular kind of action and the resulting number of cases is
therefore small, relatively large subgroup differences may not reach
statistical significance.  As the number of cases increases, smaller
differences between subgroups become significant. 

The four-fifths test, since it focuses solely on the ratio of the two
rates, is unaffected by the number of cases and is therefore
sensitive to differences even when the number of cases is small. 
However, when the number of cases is large, resulting in more stable
rates, the four-fifths test may provide too much latitude before a
difference would be seen as significant. 

Since none of the tests was wholly satisfactory, we chose to apply
multiple tests.  If we found a difference to be significant under any
of the tests, we considered that difference to be significant. 


MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
========================================================== Appendix IV


   NATIONAL SECURITY AND
   INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS DIVISION,
   WASHINGTON, D.C. 
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:1

Norman J.  Rabkin, Associate Director
William E.  Beusse, Assistant Director
Martha J.  Dey, Adviser
Beverly C.  Schladt, Site Senior
Julia M.  Kennon, Computer Specialist


   DENVER REGIONAL OFFICE
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:2

Thomas R.  Kingham, Regional Management Representative
Rudolfo G.  Payan, Evaluator-in-Charge
Richard Y.  Horiuchi, Site Senior
Douglas C.  Hsu, Evaluator
Maria Durant, Evaluator
Terry Hanford, Operations Research Analyst


   NORFOLK REGIONAL OFFICE
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:3

Paul A.  Gvoth, Jr., Operations Research Analyst

*** End of document. ***