Basic Training: Services Using a Variety of Approaches to Gender
Integration (Letter Report, 06/10/96, GAO/NSIAD-96-153).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the services' enlisted
basic training programs to determine the: (1) extent to which the
services conduct gender-integrated basic training; and (2) changes that
the services made to accommodate gender-integrated training.

GAO found that: (1) the military services use several different
approaches to integrate men and women into basic training programs; (2)
male and female trainees experience the same type of recruit program
outside of having separate berths, medical examinations, hygiene
classes, and physical standards; (3) the costs associated with
gender-integrated training are low; (4) the Army spent $67,000 to modify
its barracks to house gender-integrated basic training units; (4) these
modifications included installing partitions between male and female
berthing areas and creating separate bathrooms for male and female
trainees; (5) the Navy made modifications to its basic training facility
in response to base realignment and closure decisions; (6) the
performance of military trainees is not harmed by gender-integrated
training programs; (7) women performed better in the Army's
gender-integrated training units, but male trainees' performance
remained the same; and (8) the Army has no record of the
gender-integrated training it conducted during the late 1970's and early
1980's to compare with its current program.

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

 REPORTNUM:  NSIAD-96-153
     TITLE:  Basic Training: Services Using a Variety of Approaches to 
             Gender Integration
      DATE:  06/10/96
   SUBJECT:  Women
             Military training
             Enlisted personnel
             Cost analysis
             Comparative analysis
             Military facilities
             Military recruiting
IDENTIFIER:  Navy Recruit Training Program
             Army Basic Training 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, Subcommittee on Military Personnel, Committee
on National Security, House of Representatives

June 1996

BASIC TRAINING - SERVICES ARE
USING A VARIETY OF APPROACHES TO
GENDER INTEGRATION

GAO/NSIAD-96-153

Basic Training

(703115)


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

  ARI - Army Research Institute
  DOD - Department of Defense

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


B-271797

June 10, 1996

The Honorable Robert K.  Dornan
Chairman, Subcommittee on Military Personnel
Committee on National Security
House of Representatives

Dear Mr.  Chairman: 

In response to your request, we have reviewed enlisted basic training
to determine the (1) extent to which the services are conducting
gender-integrated basic training; (2) changes that were made to
accommodate this training and the cost of the changes; (3) pass/fail
rates (or other measures of performance) for gender-integrated basic
training compared with those for segregated training; and (4)
training regimen, results, and issues related to the current
gender-integrated basic training compared with the Army's previous
experiences with gender-integrated basic training. 


   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

Women have traditionally played a role in the military services.  In
recent years, many more career fields have opened to women, and their
assignment opportunities have considerably expanded.  In the past,
all of the services had different programs for basic training for men
and women and conducted the training for the two groups separately. 
More recently, however, the services have adjusted their philosophy
of basic training for women and now have programs more closely
aligned with those of the men.  During fiscal year 1995, the services
trained 179,068 recruits--18 percent of whom were women.  Women
comprised 18 percent of the 75,616 basic training graduates in the
Army, 20 percent of the 40,813 graduates in the Navy, 24 percent of
the 30,515 graduates in the Air Force, and 5 percent of the 32,124
graduates in the Marine Corps. 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

The military services are employing several different approaches to
the integration of men and women during basic training.  These
approaches range from using the same program of instruction for men
and women and integrating some training units to using somewhat
different programs of instruction and providing separate training. 
The costs associated with gender integration have been low.  In fact,
the Army is the only service that has incurred expenses to
accommodate gender-integrated basic training, spending approximately
$67,000 to modify barracks.  No staffing or curriculum changes have
been made to accommodate integrated basic training. 

Although data to compare the performance of trainees in
gender-integrated units with those in single-gender units is not
available in all of the services, studies of the impact have been
done for the Navy and the Army.  A 1992 study conducted for the Navy
reported no impact on objective performance measures and improvement
in teamwork measures for both men and women trained in
gender-integrated units.\1 A recently completed study of gender
integration in the Army reported that the performance of women
improved in gender-integrated training units while the performance of
men was not degraded.\2

Although the Army implemented gender-integrated basic training to
some extent in the late 1970s to the early 1980s, the Army has no
records from that period to compare with its current program. 


--------------------
\1 Jerry C.  Scarpate and Mary Anne O'Neill, "Evaluation of Gender
Integration at Recruit Training Command." Defense Equal Opportunity
Management Institute, July 1992. 

\2 Dr.  Zita M.  Simutis and Dr.  Jacqueline A.  Mottern, "Basic
Combat Training in a Gender-Integrated Environment." Briefing for
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) by the
Army Research Institute, January 25, 1996. 


   DEGREE OF TRAINEE GENDER
   INTEGRATION VARIES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

The services use different approaches to integrating men and women in
their basic training programs.  The result is a varying degree of
integration and interaction between men and women during their
initial military training, depending on the branch of service.  In
the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force, women and men follow the same
program of instruction, with differences in medical examinations,
hygiene classes, and physical fitness test standards.  The degree of
integration within training units in these services, however, does
vary.  In the Marine Corps, although large portions of the program of
instruction are the same for men and women, some are different, and
men and women are trained separately.  Table 1 compares some aspects
of the services' basic training programs. 



                                Table 1
                
                Selected Aspects of the Services' Basic
                           Training Programs

                          (Figures in percent)


                            Program of    Integrated
                            instruction   at operating
                            for men and   level
Service                     women         of training    Women     Men
--------------------------  ------------  ------------  ------  ------
Army                        Same\a        Yes              100      49

Navy                        Same\a        Yes              100      25

Air Force                   Same\a        No                 0       0

Marine Corps                Different     No                 0       0
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The only differences were in medical examinations, hygiene
classes, and physical fitness test standards. 

The Army and the Navy basic recruit training programs are nearly
identical for men and women, and in gender-integrated units, trainees
are mixed at the operating level.  The only differences are that male
and female trainees are berthed separately, have different medical
examinations and hygiene classes, and must meet different physical
fitness test standards.  In fiscal year 1995, the Army trained all of
its women and 49 percent of its men in gender-integrated units
composed of 20 to 50 percent women.  Many of the men trained in
all-male units were in combat arms specialties that are closed to
women.  In the same year, the Navy trained all of its women and 25
percent of its men in gender-integrated units composed of about 50
percent of each gender.  In forming training units, the Navy
considers it important not to have only a few of either gender in a
group because those trainees might feel isolated or intimidated. 
Therefore, because the number of men that can be trained in
integrated units is limited by the number of women available to train
with them, some units must be all male. 

As in the Navy and the Army, the Air Force's male and female trainees
follow the same program of instruction, with differences in the
medical examinations, hygiene classes, and physical fitness test
standards.  However, the operating level of recruit training, the
flight, is single gender.  Although each flight is paired with a
"brother" or "sister" flight and the pairs often train side by side,
flight integrity is maintained during training.  Thus, male and
female flights may be at the marksmanship range or in an auditorium
together, but they do not mix.  The exception to this is the physical
conditioning program, where men and women are intermingled. 

The Marine Corps does not conduct gender-integrated basic training. 
Men and women are trained separately, although large portions of the
program of instruction are the same.  Only the men are trained in
combat hitting skills and pugil sticks.  Men also receive a 24-day
course of Marine combat training after their basic training, whereas
women receive an additional week of basic training that incorporates
an abbreviated course of Marine combat training.  Marine Corps
officials told us they planned to examine the Marine combat training
program for men and women and expected to report their findings to
the Commandant in June 1996. 


   COST OF GENDER INTEGRATION HAS
   BEEN LOW
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

After examining facilities and staffing costs for basic training and
changes to the curriculum in each of the services, we concluded that
the cost of gender integration has been low.  At Fort Jackson, South
Carolina, the Army spent approximately $67,000 to modify its oldest
barracks to house gender-integrated basic training units.  The
modifications included installing partitions between the male and
female berthing areas and creating separate bathrooms for men and
women by dividing each common use bathroom into two and adding shower
heads and latrines.  The newer barracks needed no modifications. 

The Navy spent over $2 million to modify facilities to accommodate
women at its basic training location at Great Lakes, Illinois,
including changes to barracks, medical facilities, and training
buildings.  However, the Navy made these modifications in response to
base realignment and closure decisions to consolidate all recruit
training at one location.  The changes were not due to the decision
to integrate training. 

Although the ratio of trainees to drill instructors varies
considerably among the services, it is consistent between integrated
and segregated training units in the same service.  The number of
trainees for each drill instructor averages 39 for the Air Force, 28
for the Navy, 19 for the Army, and 17 for the Marine Corps. 

Although each service regularly reviews and modifies its basic
training program of instruction, none of the services has made
changes because of gender integration. 


   LIMITED DATA INDICATES GENDER
   INTEGRATION DOES NOT ERODE
   PERFORMANCE
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

Data with which to compare the effectiveness of integrated training
and segregated training was limited due to curriculum changes, a
limited history of integration, and few records documenting trainees'
performance.  The data that is available, however, indicates that
gender-integrated basic training programs do not negatively affect
the performance of trainees. 

The Marine Corps does not conduct integrated training and therefore
has no comparative data.  The Air Force provided some performance
data for its trainees by gender but was unable to provide data that
could be used to compare the performance of training units.  Thus,
comparisons of same gender pairs of flights with opposite gender
pairs could not be made. 

In a 1992 study conducted for the Navy, the Defense Equal Opportunity
Management Institute found that gender-integrated training had no
impact on the results of performance tests but improved teamwork. 
Since that time, the Navy has made significant changes in its basic
training program of instruction, placing greater emphasis on physical
training.  The Navy was unable to provide data to compare the
performance of trainees in integrated units with those in segregated
units using this new program of instruction. 

In 1996, the Army Research Institute (ARI) concluded that the
performance of women improved in gender-integrated training units
while the performance of men was not degraded.  This conclusion was
based on a 3-year study that dealt with measures of performance such
as physical fitness, marksmanship, and individual proficiency test
results. 

Additionally, the Army provided some performance data for fiscal
years 1993-95 for about 80 percent of the trainees from an all-male
training location that we compared with ARI's results from the
gender-integrated companies.  Officials at the all-male location told
us that they did not have information on the other 20 percent of
their trainees for that year.  They said, however, that they believed
the 80 percent was representative of the whole.  The information they
provided indicates that the pass rates for male trainees in the
gender-integrated companies exceeded the pass rates for trainees at
the all-male location in those categories of physical performance for
which data was available--the Army physical fitness test and the
basic rifle marksmanship test (see table 2). 



                                Table 2
                
                   Pass Rates for Men in All-Male and
                 Integrated Army Training Units (fiscal
                             years 1993-95)

                         (Figures in percents)



                          All-male  Integrated    All-male  Integrated
Fiscal year               location       units    location       units
----------------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
1993                            97          98          97          98
1994                            89          99          97          98
1995                            88          99          96          98
----------------------------------------------------------------------

   DATA TO COMPARE CURRENT AND
   PREVIOUS ARMY GENDER-INTEGRATED
   PROGRAMS DOES NOT EXIST
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

Although the Army conducted gender-integrated basic training in the
late 1970s and early 1980s, the Army has no records of those programs
or their results to compare with those on its current program and
results.  However, we did find reports of a 1976 Army test of the
same basic training program of instruction for men and women.\3

Before September 1976, women entering the Army received different
training from that of their male counterparts.  From September to
November 1976, the Army tested a common program of instruction for
men and women.  Although men and women received the same training for
the test period, it was conducted in single-gender units.  According
to a report on the results of this test, the program of instruction
used was similar to that previously used for basic training for men
and was very different from the one previously used for women.  The
study found that women met the standards in every area except the
physical fitness standards (men's standards were used for both men
and women) and that those standards could be modified for the women
without changing the content of the training or reducing the value of
the training received.  Problems observed during the test were as
follows: 

  -- The uniforms the women were issued for the training were
     inadequate, and women were issued men's boots that often did not
     fit their feet.  Also, the field jackets, although made for
     women, were not as warm and did not fit as well as those issued
     to the men. 

  -- Male instructors were inadequately prepared to train women. 
     They tended to be overprotective and assumed women would not
     meet the standards. 

We could not determine what actions were taken as a result of the
study.  However, some Army training locations did continue to conduct
gender-integrated basic training programs until the early 1980s, when
the Army ended such programs.  The Army could provide no
documentation of these early efforts at gender integration, their
results, or the reasons the efforts were stopped.  The Army officials
with whom we spoke had various opinions as to the results of the
earlier efforts and the reasons the Army discontinued them.  Some
said the results were not good, which led the Army to stop the
training.  Others said the results were good and that the training
was stopped because of a lack of support within the Army. 

In 1993, the Army again began integrating basic training and has
avoided many of the problems identified in the 1976 study.  For
example, different physical fitness standards are used for men and
women, all trainees' clothing appears to be more suitable for the
weather, women are issued boots suitable for them, and athletic shoes
are used by all trainees for physical training.  As noted previously,
the 1996 ARI study of the current gender-integrated program indicates
that the training is effective.  However, the training of instructors
is still an issue, as ARI reports that many drill sergeants believe
that their training course does not adequately prepare them to
conduct gender-integrated basic training.  Army officials told us the
Army was currently modifying its training course for drill sergeants
to incorporate lessons learned from the ARI study.  The officials
said they expected the modified course to better prepare the drill
sergeants to conduct gender-integrated basic training. 

Although they were unable to specifically cite problems in the
earlier gender-integrated basic training program, Army officials told
us that many factors had positively affected the training environment
since then, including improvements in training equipment and
facilities, advances in sports medicine, the use of athletic shoes
for physical training, and increased roles for women in the military
and society in general. 


--------------------
\3 Performance data is reported in Basic Initial Entry Training Test
Report, Department of the Army, December 30, 1976.  Attitudinal data
is reported in Basic Initial Entry Training Test Attitude Survey,
U.S.  Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences,
September 1978. 


   RECOMMENDATION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7

To evaluate the effectiveness of each service's approach to the
integration of recruit training, we recommend that the Secretary of
Defense direct the services to retain and analyze comparative
performance data for men and women in single-gender and
gender-integrated training units. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :8

In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD concurred with the
findings and recommendation.  DOD stated it would instruct each of
the services to retain and analyze comparative performance data for
men and women in single-gender and gender-integrated training units
over a 1-year time period to be completed by fiscal year 1998.  DOD's
comments appear in appendix I. 


   SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :9

During our review of enlisted basic training in the Army, the Navy,
the Marine Corps, and the Air Force, we examined reports on
gender-integrated basic training and discussed progress and problems
in this area with Office of the Secretary of Defense and service
officials at the policy and program levels.  In addition, we visited
basic training locations of each of the services.  To determine the
extent of gender-integrated training, we examined the type and
duration of instruction provided male and female trainees,
performance requirements for trainees, and the organizational level
at which trainees are integrated. 

To determine the cost of gender-integrated training, we interviewed
service officials and reviewed service information to determine the
changes made to facilities and staffing as a result of integration
and the costs of those changes. 

To determine the relative performance of trainees in integrated and
segregated units, we compared available performance measures provided
by the services for these two groups.  This comparison was limited
due to curriculum changes, a limited history of integration, and the
limited number of records documenting trainees' performance. 

To determine how the Army's current gender-integrated basic training
program compares with its past experience with gender integration, we
requested documentation on current and past programs and their
results.  We also contacted officials who were involved with the
Army's earlier experience with gender integration to obtain any data
they might have kept from that period. 

We conducted our review from August 1995 to April 1996 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards. 


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :9.1

We are sending copies of this report to other interested
congressional committees and Members of Congress; the Secretaries of
Defense, the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force; and the Commandant of
the Marine Corps.  We will also make copies available to other
interested parties on request. 


Please contact me at (202) 512-5140 if you or your staff have any
questions concerning this report.  Major contributors to this report
are listed in appendix II. 

Sincerely yours,

Mark E.  Gebicke
Director, Military Operations
 and Capabilities Issues




(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix I
COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE
============================================================== Letter 


MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
========================================================== Appendix II

NATIONAL SECURITY AND
INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS DIVISION,
WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Sharon A.  Cekala, Associate Director
William E.  Beusse, Assistant Director

NORFOLK FIELD OFFICE

Janet Keller, Evaluator-in-Charge
Sharon Reid, Evaluator
Jeff McDowell, Evaluator

*** End of document. ***