Defense Infrastructure: Central Training Funding Projected to Remain
Stable During 1997-2003 (Letter Report, 06/30/98, GAO/NSIAD-98-168).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the Department of
Defense's (DOD) central training activities, focusing on: (1) trends in
central training funding and causes for those trends; (2) DOD's
initiatives to reduce central training funding requirements or improve
the effectiveness and efficiency of central training programs; and (3)
DOD's management of those initiatives. GAO did not validate the
services' explanations for those trends, nor did GAO compare trends
across the services.

GAO noted that: (1) funding for central training activities declined
between fiscal years 1992 and 1997 by almost $4.5 billion; (2) during
this period, the services reduced accessions to meet lowered personnel
levels, closed and consolidated training installations, and outsourced
base maintenance; (3) decreases in Navy and Army central training
programs accounted for about 90 percent of the decline; (4) no
additional funding decline was programmed through 2003 in the 1998
Future Years Defense Program; (5) from 1997 through 2003, funds were
projected to remain stable at about $21.5 billion; (6) projected
stability in overall funding after 1997 was a result of several
projections; (7) installation support for all of the services was
projected to be lower in 2003 than in 1997 because they planned to
continue to outsource and replace military personnel with civilians to
perform base maintenance; (8) funding for central training was highly
concentrated in three training categories--professional and skill
training, command managed training, and installation support; (9) these
three categories received and were projected to receive almost
two-thirds of DOD's central training funds over the 1992 through 2003
period; (10) although funding was projected to continue to decline for
professional and skill training and installation support, funding for
command managed training was projected to increase because of growth in
Air Force and Navy programs; (11) the Army had the largest share of
training funds, about one-third of the total; (12) the Air Force was
projected to overtake the Navy in 1998 for the second largest share of
training funds; (13) the Marine Corps' share of training funds has been
and was projected to be less than 10 percent; (14) DOD and the services
have programs and initiatives to improve the quality of training and
bring about greater efficiency in training programs; (15) these efforts
are designed to consolidate intra- and inter-service courses; improve
the effectiveness of instruction through computer-based training and
distance learning; and foster cooperation with the private sector to
accelerate the applications of new learning technologies; and (16) DOD
and the services have not projected the total investment required for
these initiatives or the total savings that might accrue from them.

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

 REPORTNUM:  NSIAD-98-168
     TITLE:  Defense Infrastructure: Central Training Funding Projected 
             to Remain Stable During 1997-2003
      DATE:  06/30/98
   SUBJECT:  Defense cost control
             Future budget projections
             Defense budgets
             Military training
             Funds management
             Education or training costs
             Cost effectiveness analysis
IDENTIFIER:  DOD Future Years Defense Program
             DOD Bottom-Up Review
             DOD Quadrennial Defense Review
             DOD Joint Primary Aircraft Training System
             Interservice Training Review Organization Military Training 
             Structure Review
             DOD Advanced Distribution Learning Program
             Marine Corps Enlisted Career Force Controls 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 the Budget, House of
Representatives

June 1998

DEFENSE INFRASTRUCTURE - CENTRAL
TRAINING FUNDING PROJECTED TO
REMAIN STABLE DURING 1997-2003

GAO/NSIAD-98-168

Defense Infrastructure

(701118)


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

  ADL - Advanced Distributed Learning
  AFROTC - Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps
  DOD - Department of Defense
  FYDP - Future Years Defense Programs
  ITRO - Interservice Training Review Organization
  ROTC - Reserve Officer Training Corps
  OSD - Office of the Secretary of Defense

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


B-278555

June 30, 1998

The Honorable John R.  Kasich
Chairman, Committee on the Budget
House of Representatives

Dear Mr.  Chairman: 

The Department of Defense's (DOD) budget request for fiscal year 1999
includes about $20.1 billion (in fiscal year 1998 dollars) for formal
training and education of military and civilian personnel, referred
to as central training, or about 8 percent of DOD's fiscal year 1999
budget.  Central training is the third largest of eight DOD
infrastructure categories, and accounts for 14.4 percent of the
$139.6 billion (in fiscal year 1998 dollars) that the Department has
budgeted for infrastructure in fiscal year 1999.\1

Because central training activities represent a significant part of
DOD's infrastructure, you requested that we identify trends in
central training funding and causes for those trends.  You also
requested that we identify DOD's initiatives to reduce central
training funding requirements or improve the effectiveness and
efficiency of central training programs and DOD's management of those
initiatives. 

Our work was based primarily on data from the fiscal year 1998 and
earlier Future Years Defense Programs (FYDP) because the fiscal year
1999 FYDP did not become available until after we had completed our
detailed analyses.  Our preliminary analysis of the fiscal year 1999
FYDP identified significant reductions in central training
infrastructure funding.  We believe this report represents an
excellent baseline to evaluate projected changes in the central
training infrastructure budget resulting from DOD's 1997 Quadrennial
Defense Review and DOD cost saving initiatives.  We plan to further
analyze the changes in the fiscal year 1999 FYDP, determine DOD's
rationale for them, and determine DOD's plans for implementing these
changes. 

This report highlights trends in the central training infrastructure
that Congress can use in its deliberations on the Defense budget and
the direction of Defense central training programs and initiatives. 
We present service trends and their explanations for those trends. 
We did not validate the services' explanations for the trends,
although they generally appear to be consistent with the trends.  Nor
did we compare trends across the services because the training
categories do not contain the same programs and activities within
each service, and this might distort the comparisons. 


--------------------
\1 DOD defines infrastructure as activities that provide support
services to mission programs and primarily operate from fixed
locations.  The other infrastructure categories are installation
support; acquisition infrastructure; central logistics; central
medical; central personnel; central command, control, and
communications; and force management. 


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

Since its Bottom-Up Review in 1993, DOD has repeatedly stated that it
must reduce its infrastructure to offset the cost of future modern
weapon systems.  Our analysis of DOD's FYDPs for fiscal years 1996,
1997, and 1998 showed that DOD continued to allocate about the same
percentage of its budget for infrastructure activities as it did at
the time of the Bottom-Up Review and that planned funding increases
for weapon systems had repeatedly been shifted further into the
future with each succeeding FYDP.\2

In its May 1997 Report of the Quadrennial Defense Review, DOD
recognized that the downsizing of its infrastructure had fallen
behind the downsizing of its force structure.  In that report, DOD
proposed some actions to reduce its infrastructure, including
personnel reductions, base closures and realignments to reduce
additional excess facilities, and streamlined operations.  Actions
and initiatives as a result of the Quadrennial Defense Review were to
be reflected in the fiscal year 1999 budget and FYDP for fiscal years
1999-2003. 

Central training programs include individual training activities such
as new personnel training, skill and proficiency training, initial
pilot and navigator training, management of the central training
system, and the support of central training installations.  These
programs provide training for active military personnel, reserve
component personnel, and DOD civilians.  These programs are
categorized by DOD for budgetary purposes as follows:  (1)
administrative support, (2) installation support, (3) command managed
training programs, (4) general central training, (5) training of new
personnel, (6) officer training and academies, (7) aviation and
flight training, and (8) professional and skill training.  Although
DOD categorizes health personnel training in its central medical
infrastructure category, we included it in our analysis because it is
nonunit training.  The central training categories are described in
appendix I. 

Most central training activities are managed by the services' major
training commands and conducted at the commands' training
installations.  According to DOD and service training officials,
although these commands do not manage the military personnel
appropriations portion of central training funds (used for instructor
and student salaries), the commands are responsible for course
operations (i.e.  the development of course curricula, course books
and supplies, etc.); the maintenance of training facilities; and the
administration of the training programs. 

Central training is different from unit mission training.  Unit
mission training is undertaken by operational units to maintain the
units' required readiness in their primary combat, combat support, or
combat service support missions.  Central training is the training of
individual military members in formal courses. 

The services consider a number of factors in formulating their
central training requirements.  Factors include projected authorized
end strength, losses in each occupational specialty/category by grade
and years in grade, accessions, promotions, and reenlistments. 
Therefore, a change in end strength levels may not lead to a
proportional change in training requirements.  For example, higher
than expected separation rates may require increased training
requirements despite programmed lower personnel levels.  The services
compile "training workload" to determine resources (people, funds,
material, and facilities) required to conduct training.  Training
workload measures the output (work years) of the services'
institutional training programs. 

Most funds for central training are derived from DOD's military
personnel and operation and maintenance appropriation categories. 
Appendix II describes the distribution of funds for each training
category. 


--------------------
\2 Future Years Defense Program:  DOD's 1998 Plan Has Substantial
Risk in Execution (GAO/NSIAD-98-26, Oct.  23, 1997); Future Years
Defense Program:  Lower Inflation Outlook Was Most Significant Change
From 1996 to 1997 Program (GAO/NSIAD-97-36, Dec.  12, 1996); Defense
Infrastructure:  Costs Projected to Increase Between 1997 and 2001
(GAO/NSIAD-96-174, May 31, 1996); and Future Years Defense Program: 
1996 Program Is Considerably Different From the 1995 Program
(GAO/NSIAD-95-213, Sept.  15, 1995). 


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

Funding for central training activities declined between fiscal year
1992 and 1997 by almost $4.5 billion.\3 A combination of factors led
to this decline.  During this period, the services reduced accessions
to meet lowered personnel levels, closed and consolidated training
installations, and outsourced base maintenance.  Decreases in Navy
and Army central training programs accounted for about 90 percent of
the decline. 

No additional funding decline was programmed through 2003 in the 1998
FYDP.  From 1997 through 2003, funds were projected to remain stable
at about $21.5 billion.  Hence, DOD did not project further savings
from this infrastructure category to help pay the cost of future
modern weapon systems. 

The projected stability in overall funding after 1997 was primarily a
result of several projections, including (1) relatively steady state
military personnel levels; (2) relatively steady state accessions
after having increased considerably at the end of the earlier period;
(3) continued funding declines in professional and skill training,
installation support, and the training of new personnel; and (4)
funding increases in command managed training and aviation and flight
training.  The Navy and the Army accounted for most of the projected
decrease in the professional and skill training category.  The Navy
transferred funding for several programs from this category to the
command managed training category and reduced workloads.  The Army
planned to consolidate and restructure professional and skill
training courses to reduce training time and expand the use of
technology.  Installation support for all of the services was
projected to be lower in 2003 than in 1997 because they planned to
continue to outsource and replace military personnel with civilians
to perform base maintenance.  The projected funding increases were
due primarily to projected increases in aviation training workload
for the Air Force, the Navy, and the Army, and the purchases of the
Joint Primary Aircraft Training System by the Air Force and the Navy. 

Funding for central training was highly concentrated in three
training categories--professional and skill training, command managed
training, and installation support.  These three categories received
and were projected to receive almost two-thirds of DOD's central
training funds over the 1992-2003 period.  Funding for all three
categories declined through 1997.  Although funding was projected to
continue to decline for professional and skill training and
installation support, funding for command managed training was
projected to increase because of growth in Air Force and Navy
programs. 

The Army had the largest share of training funds, about one-third of
the total.  The Air Force was projected to overtake the Navy in 1998
for the second largest share of training funds.  The Air Force's
share was projected to grow because its training budgets were
projected to increase while the Navy's budgets were projected to
continue to decline.  According to Air Force training officials, the
projected growth in the Air Force budget was due primarily to
increases in pilot accessions that resulted in increases in aviation
and flight and command managed training.  The Marine Corps' share of
training funds has been and was projected to be less than 10 percent. 

DOD and the services have programs and initiatives to improve the
quality of training and bring about greater efficiency in training
programs.  These efforts are designed to consolidate intra- and
inter-service courses; improve the effectiveness of instruction
through computer-based training and distance learning (i.e. 
structured training that can take place almost anywhere and anytime
without the physical presence of an instructor); and foster
cooperation with the private sector to accelerate the applications of
new learning technologies.  DOD and the services have not projected
the total investment required for these initiatives or the total
savings that might accrue from them.  Both could be substantial. 
According to the services, these initiatives will require upfront
investments, and savings may occur later, some beyond 2003.  For
example, DOD estimates that service investments in distance learning
could reach $2 billion by 2007.  The Army estimates that it will
achieve over $900 million in savings and cost avoidances by 2010
through its distance learning efforts.  Historically, the military
services have managed training initiatives, but the Office of the
Secretary of Defense is now assuming a greater role.  The Office has
endorsed the Army's distance learning plan as a model for all of the
services.  It has also led the Advanced Distributed Learning program
from its genesis to identify and promote collaborative opportunities
within DOD as well as with the private sector, other federal
agencies, and educational institutions. 


--------------------
\3 Unless otherwise stated, the dollar values shown in this report
are in constant 1998 dollars and on a fiscal year basis. 


   FUNDING AND PERSONNEL LEVELS
   DECLINED THROUGH 1997 BUT WERE
   PROJECTED TO REMAIN STABLE
   THEREAFTER
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

Funds for central training declined $4.5 billion, or 17.3 percent,
between 1992 and 1997.  Most of this decline, $3.2 billion, or 12.4
percent, occurred between 1992 and 1993.  From 1997 through 2003,
funds were projected to average about $21.5 billion.  Military
personnel levels decreased by 19.4 percent during the 1992-97 period. 
As with funding, military personnel levels were projected to remain
stable through 2003.  (See fig.  1.)

   Figure 1:  Annual DOD Central
   Training Funding and Personnel
   Levels for 1992-2003 (constant
   1998 dollars in billions)

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  Our analysis of DOD FYDP data. 


   THREE TRAINING CATEGORIES
   RECEIVED MAJORITY OF FUNDS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

Three training categories--professional and skill training, command
managed training, and installation support--received and were
projected to receive over 60 percent of DOD's annual central training
funds over the 1992-2003 period.  This concentration continued
despite a projected 19.6-percent decline in funds for these
categories over the period.  Figure 2 shows the distribution of funds
by category for 1998. 

   Figure 2:  Distribution of
   Central Training Funds by
   Training Category for 1998

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  Our analysis of DOD FYDP data. 

The annual funding levels for the three largest training categories
are shown in figure 3. 

   Figure 3:  Annual Funding for
   Three Largest Central Training
   Categories for 1992-2003
   (constant 1998 dollars in
   billions)

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  Our analysis of DOD FYDP data. 

The professional and skill training category was projected to receive
almost one-third, about $7 billion, of central training funds in
1998.  Funding for this category was at its highest level in 1992,
$8.3 billion, and was projected to decline by over 20 percent to $6.6
billion by 2003.  Most of this decline, 18.6 percent, occurred
between 1992 and 1995. 

Command managed training was projected to receive, on average, about
16.3 percent of central training funds.  Other than a 9.1-percent
funding increase in 1995, funding for this category fell 20.5 percent
from $4 billion to $3.2 billion between 1992 and 1997.  Funding was
expected to grow to $3.6 billion, or by 11.7 percent, between 1997
and 2001, and stabilize at that level through 2003. 

Installation support received 15.8 percent, $3.4 billion, of training
funds in 1998.  Between 1992 and 2003, annual funding for this
category was expected to fall almost 25.8 percent, from $4.2 billion
to $3.1 billion, respectively.  This was the largest percentage
decrease of these three training categories, and according to the
services, this decrease resulted from base closures and increased
outsourcing of support functions.  For example, the Navy closed
recruit training centers at Orlando, Florida, and San Diego,
California, and the Air Force will contract maintenance at Maxwell
Air Force Base, Alabama, by 2000. 

The next two largest training categories, aviation and flight
training and training of new personnel, accounted for about 23
percent, on average, of central training funds between 1992 and 2003. 
As figure 4 shows, annual funding for aviation and flight training
decreased from $3.2 billion to $2.3 billion, 26.9 percent, during the
1992 and 1996 period and, thereafter, was projected to grow to $2.8
billion, by 18.6 percent, through 2003.  The Air Force and the Army
accounted for the majority of the growth with planned funding
increases of 46.7 and 18.6 percent, respectively, between 1996 and
2003.  Funding for the training of new personnel was expected to
decline by 12.8 percent over the 1992-2003 period, but annual funding
levels fluctuated significantly.  For example, funding declined 26.6
percent between 1992 and 1995, but grew almost 30 percent over the
1995-97 period.  The decline was due to a reduction in personnel
levels, and the increase was due to a growth in accessions to meet
end strength goals. 

   Figure 4:  Annual Funding for
   Two Central Training Categories
   for 1992-2003 (constant 1998
   dollars in billions)

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  Our analysis of DOD FYDP data. 

The four remaining categories--health personnel training, officer
training and academies, general central training, and administrative
support for training--accounted for less than 15 percent of central
training funds in 1998.  Figure 5 shows the annual funding levels for
these categories. 

   Figure 5:  Annual Funding for
   Four Central Training
   Categories for 1992-2003
   (constant 1998 dollars in
   billions)

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  Our analysis of DOD FYDP data. 


   ARMY HAD LARGEST SHARE OF
   TRAINING FUNDS AND AIR FORCE
   PROJECTED TO OVERTAKE NAVY FOR
   SECOND LARGEST SHARE
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

The Army had the largest portion of central training funds over the
1992-2003 period--about one-third of the total.  Although the Navy
received 30 percent of the training funds and the Air Force received
23 percent in 1992, by 1998, the Air Force's portion was projected to
increase to 27 percent, and the Navy's portion was projected to
decrease to 25 percent.  The shift occurred because the Air Force's
funding level fell 9 percent while the Navy's fell 30.1 percent
between 1992 and 1997.  The Air Force was the only service that
projected an increase in funding from 1997 to 2003.  The Marine
Corps' portion was expected to remain less than 10 percent.  Besides
being the smallest service, most Marine Corps training, other than
basic military training, is conducted by other military services. 
For example, over 60 percent of enlisted skill training and 40
percent of officer skill training are completed at other service
schools.  Defense-wide programs accounted for about 6 percent of
annual central training funds after 1993.  The military personnel
costs associated with Defense-wide programs are funded by the
services.  About 85 percent of that funding was for health personnel
training.  Figure 6 shows funding by DOD component for selected
years. 

   Figure 6:  Central Training
   Funding by Component for
   Selected Years (constant 1998
   dollars in billions)

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  Our analysis of DOD FYDP data. 


   ARMY FUNDING PROJECTED TO
   REMAIN STABLE AFTER SUBSTANTIAL
   DROP
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

The Army's central training funds for 2003 were projected to be about
22 percent below 1992 levels.  Most of the decline occurred from 1992
through 1994 when funding dropped from $9.2 billion to $7 billion and
military personnel levels also fell sharply.\4 Figure 7 shows funding
and personnel levels for the 1992-2003 period. 

   Figure 7:  Army Training Funds
   and Personnel Levels for
   1992-2003 (constant 1998
   dollars in billions)

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  Our analysis of DOD FYDP data. 

Three training categories--professional and skill training,
installation support, and training of new personnel--consistently
commanded the majority of the Army's central training funds and
accounted for over 79 percent of those funds in 1998, as shown in
figure 8.  Appendix III provides a detailed analysis of Army funding
trends by training category. 

   Figure 8:  Distribution of Army
   Central Training Funds by
   Training Category for 1998

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  Our analysis of DOD FYDP data. 

The largest of the Army's funding decline was in installation
support.  According to Army training officials, the decline reflected
savings from efficiency efforts such as outsourcing/privatizing
installation support functions and upgrading installation utilities. 
After 1995, the Army transferred 80 percent ($600 million) of the
funding in command managed training to operating forces, which
accounted for the substantial decline in its command managed
category.  The Army held accession rates below what was required to
maintain a level end strength between fiscal
year 1992 and 1995, which contributed to the decline in the following
categories:  training of new personnel, officer training and
academies, professional and skill training, and aviation and flight
training.  Accession rates subsequently increased, which led to a
substantial increase in the funding for the training of new
personnel.  The Army is implementing new distance learning technology
and the Total Army School System, which the service considers
essential to improving readiness and reducing training costs. 


--------------------
\4 Unless otherwise stated, our reference to military personnel
includes active military and reserve component personnel. 


   NAVY PROJECTED SUBSTANTIAL
   DECLINE IN TRAINING FUNDS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7

Funding for the Navy's central training was projected to decline by
about $2.7 billion (34 percent) over the 1992-2003 period.  Most of
this decline, which was the largest of any service, occurred from
1992 to 1997 when funding slipped by over 30 percent.  As figure 9
shows, the decline in funds followed the decline in personnel. 

   Figure 9:  Navy Training Funds
   and Personnel Levels for
   1992-2003 (constant 1998
   dollars in billions)

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  Our analysis of DOD FYDP data. 

Three training categories, professional and skill training, command
managed training, and aviation and flight training, consistently
commanded the majority of the Navy's central training funds.  These
categories accounted for about 73 percent of the Navy's central
training funds in 1998, as shown in figure 10.  Appendix IV provides
a detailed analysis of Navy funding trends by training category. 

   Figure 10:  Distribution of
   Navy Central Training Funds by
   Training Category for 1998

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  Our analysis of DOD FYDP data. 

The majority of the Navy's funding decline was in the professional
and skill training category, which was funded at about $2.7 billion
in 1992 but was expected to fall to about $1.7 billion in 2003, a
39-percent decline.  Navy training officials stated that the training
establishment has undergone significant changes in the 1990s as a
result of decreases in end strength and force structure.  End
strength decreased by 29.7 percent.  Also, several training commands
or training courses have been consolidated or eliminated and new
technologies have been incorporated in the Navy's schools to more
efficiently use scarce training resources. 

Despite the overall continued decline in projected funding for most
Navy central training programs throughout the period we reviewed,
funding for aviation and flight and command managed training was
projected to grow after 1998.  Funding for aviation and flight
training was projected to increase by 8.7 percent ($82.9 million)
between 1996 and 2001 due in part to procurement of new training
aircraft and increased training workload.  Annual command managed
training funding was projected to grow by
7.5 percent ($86.2 million) between 1997 and 2001 as a result of
increased costs for aviation depot level repairables and the transfer
of new programs into this category from the professional and skill
training category. 


   AIR FORCE FUNDING LEVEL
   PROJECTED TO BE ABOUT THE SAME
   IN 2003 AS IN 1992
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :8

Although the Air Force's funding for central training has fluctuated
over the years, it was projected to be at the same level in 2003 as
it was in 1992, about $6 billion.  During this period, personnel
levels were projected to decline by 18.8 percent.  The Air Force was
the only service that projected higher funding for training in 2003
than in 1997.  Figure 11 shows the funding and military personnel
levels. 

   Figure 11:  Air Force Training
   Funds and Personnel Levels for
   1992-2003 (constant 1998
   dollars in billions)

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  Our analysis of DOD FYDP data. 

In 1998, almost 90 percent of the Air Force's central training funds
were programmed for four categories:  command managed training,
professional and skill training, aviation and flight training, and
installation support, as shown in figure 12.  Appendix V provides a
detailed analysis of Air Force funding trends by training category. 

   Figure 12:  Distribution of Air
   Force Central Training Funds by
   Training Category for 1998

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  Our analysis of DOD FYDP data. 

Between 1992 and 1997, central training funding fell by 9 percent,
primarily during the first year we reviewed.  During 1992-96,
enlisted workload declined as end strength fell, resulting in
decreased funding levels for the training of new personnel. 
Installation support fell 8.5 percent between 1992 and 1996 due to
the closure of two technical training bases and two flying training
wings in 1993 and 1994.  In addition, aviation and flight training
declined 31 percent since the Air Force had to train fewer pilots
during this period as it drew pilots out of its excess pilot
inventory.  Offsetting some of this decline were some significant
increases in other categories.  For example, professional and skill
training funding increased 10.7 percent between 1993 and 1996.  In
fiscal year 1992, the Air Force initiated servicewide improvements in
its training establishment, called the "Year of Training"
initiatives.  These initiatives, most of which were implemented
beginning in fiscal year 1994, required additional funding for
professional and skill training above prior year levels to develop
new courses, and cover additional student workloads. 

Funding for the training of new personnel and officer training and
academies was projected to increase during the 1997-2003 period
because the Air Force increased enlisted personnel accessions
annually after 1996, and officer accessions after 1994.  According to
the Air Force, during the force drawdown, the service did not access
enough personnel to meet outyear end strength requirements.  Also,
retention rates decreased, especially for pilots, resulting in
significant projected funding increases for aviation and flight (32.9
percent) and command managed (16.6 percent) training. 


   MARINE CORPS FUNDING PROJECTED
   TO BE ONLY SLIGHTLY HIGHER IN
   2003 THAN IN 1992
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :9

The Marine Corps' level of annual central training funding was
projected to increase 1.1 percent over the 12 years we reviewed. 
Between 1992 and 1997, the Marine Corps individual training funding
grew 2 percent, while its end strength fell 4.9 percent as shown in
figure 13.  After fiscal
year 1997, funding was planned to fall about 1 percent as personnel
levels stabilized. 

   Figure 13:  Marine Corps
   Training Funds and Personnel
   Levels for 1992-2003 (constant
   1998 dollars in billions)

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  Our analysis of DOD FYDP data. 

In fiscal year 1998, over two-thirds of the Marine Corps' central
training funding was planned to pay for professional and skill
training (39.8 percent) and training of new personnel (27.6 percent),
as shown in figure 14.  Appendix VI provides a detailed analysis of
Marine Corps funding trends by training category. 

   Figure 14:  Distribution of
   Marine Corps Central Training
   Funds by Training Category for
   1998

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  Our analysis of DOD FYDP data. 

The slight growth in the Marine Corps' central training funding was
due to a planned increase in enlisted turnover rates, resulting in
increased annual accession requirements.  This increase in accessions
was reflected in the 23-percent increase in funding for the training
of new personnel over the 1992 to 1997 period.  The Marine Corps
instituted the Enlisted Career Force Controls program to achieve
equitable promotion opportunity and control the flow of Marines into
the career force structure.  In addition, this program would save
personnel costs as the percentage of first-term Marines increased by
about 10 percent to 69 percent of the enlisted force.  Between 1997
and 2003, the Marine Corps' annual central training funding was
projected to fall by less than 1 percent, even though officer
accessions were planned to increase, and the recruit training program
was lengthened by 1 week. 


   INITIATIVES TO REDUCE TRAINING
   COSTS OR ENHANCE TRAINING
   EFFICIENCY AND/OR EFFECTIVENESS
----------------------------------------------------------- Letter :10

The Secretary of Defense's April 1997 Annual Report to the President
and the Congress stated that "The key to ensuring a trained, ready
force in the future is to develop ways to train the force in more
efficient and less costly ways." The Office of the Secretary of
Defense (OSD) and the services have used and plan to use techniques,
such as (1) course consolidations and more extensive use of
technology, in programs and initiatives to bring about intra- and
inter-service course consolidations; (2) computer-based training and
distance learning to improve the efficiency of instruction; (3) the
acquisition of new equipment and technology to support joint
training, interservice training, and reduce the total cost of
training; and (4) private sector cooperation to accelerate the
applications of new learning technologies.  See appendix VII for more
detail. 


      INTERSERVICE TRAINING REVIEW
      ORGANIZATION
--------------------------------------------------------- Letter :10.1

The Interservice Training Review Organization (ITRO), an organization
of the military services, was established in 1972 to improve the
cost-effectiveness and efficiency of service training consistent with
individual service requirements.  ITRO is a voluntary organization
that relies on mutual agreements between the services for
consolidation\5 and/or collocation\6 of training courses.  In 1992,
the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, directed the service chiefs,
through ITRO, to take the lead in a Military Training Structure
Review to determine if they could eliminate duplication in military
training and create cost savings.  The Review resulted in the
consolidation/collocation of 128 courses from which DOD estimated
annual recurring savings of $8.2 million after a one-time upfront
cost of $9.4 million as courses were converted.\7 ITRO is currently
focusing on ways to improve the efficiency/effectiveness of training
through more extensive use of technology and continuing efforts to
consolidate courses. 


--------------------
\5 A consolidated school or course has a curriculum developed by two
or more services.  The school or course faculty includes fair share
instructor representation from all participating services and the
host service.  The curriculum may be common throughout or consist of
a common core plus service unique tracks.  Training policies,
directives, materials, and personnel requirements are determined by
mutual agreement between the services involved. 

\6 A collocated school or course is used by one or more services on
another service's installation in which classroom facilities and
equipment may be shared.  Training policies, curriculum, and
instructor requirements are determined by the service(s) conducting
the training. 

\7 Cost and savings estimates are in fiscal year 1996 dollars. 


      DISTANCE LEARNING
--------------------------------------------------------- Letter :10.2

Distance learning initiatives are used to move training and education
from residential training base settings to operating unit levels. 
Although the concept of distance learning is not new (e.g.,
correspondence courses), the services have recently undertaken
efforts to make their training programs more cost-effective by
incorporating technology into their training programs.  As we
reported, although the full scope of the services' planned distance
learning activities has not been identified, OSD officials estimated
in August 1997 that the services would obligate at least $100 million
in 1998 and as much as $2 billion over the next 10 years for such
activities.\8 The Army is the only service that has formally
documented its distance learning plan, which DOD endorsed as a model
for developing and implementing distance learning.  Although OSD
officials have actively promoted collaboration among the services, it
has not yet developed a departmentwide strategy to focus service
distance learning efforts.  As a result, each of the services
currently is pursuing its own distance learning strategy. 


--------------------
\8 Distance Learning:  Opportunities Exist for DOD to Capitalize on
Services' Efforts (GAO/NSIAD-98-63R, Dec.  18, 1997). 


      SERVICE INITIATIVES
--------------------------------------------------------- Letter :10.3

Each of the military services completed reviews of its training
structure to improve the efficiency and/or effectiveness of the
training of its members.  At the time of our review, the services had
not estimated the total costs nor the savings from these
improvements.  The Army is consolidating its training structure for
both its active and reserve components into a "Total Army School
System." The Navy's Training Baseline Assessment Memorandum is a plan
for investing in new technologies to accommodate fiscal constraints
while, among other things, increasing training efficiencies.  The Air
Force implemented its "Year of Training" initiatives plan between
fiscal year 1992 and 1996.  The plan restructured the Air Force's
training establishment to improve the quality of its education and
training programs by consolidating training within the service and
developing additional formal training courses to teach skills rather
than using on-the-job training.  The Marine Corps is introducing
distance learning into its training establishment to provide more
effective training with fewer resources, and it plans to build its
distance learning program around currently funded infrastructure
upgrades to save money. 


      ADVANCED DISTRIBUTED
      LEARNING
--------------------------------------------------------- Letter :10.4

The most recent DOD initiative is Advanced Distributed Learning.  DOD
envisions the initiative to be the next generation of more
cost-effective learning technologies.  The initiative is intended to
accelerate the application of new learning technologies to reduce the
total cost of training, enhance performance, and maintain readiness. 
The concept will exploit network technologies for development,
delivery, and management of education and training.  Advanced
Distributed Learning envisions a partnership among DOD, other federal
agencies, private-sector technology suppliers, the broader education
and training community, and industry.  The initiative not only
encompasses military training and the development of job performance
aids, but also elementary, high school, university, and industry
education and training.  OSD and the White House Office of Science
and Technology Policy sponsored a "kick-off" meeting in November 1997
to form working groups to identify functional requirements, to
determine market requirements, to develop common technical
frameworks, and to identify and prioritize research requirements. 
According to OSD training officials, guidelines for the fiscal year
1999 development and implementation of Advanced Distributed Learning
modules will be published in October 1998. 


   CONCLUSIONS
----------------------------------------------------------- Letter :11

DOD is searching for infrastructure savings to pay for modernization,
but it did not program any savings in central training infrastructure
in its fiscal year 1998 FYDP.  The services reduced their central
training infrastructure between 1992 and 1997, and DOD and the
services are currently implementing programs and initiatives to
contain or reduce costs further.  Overall central training funding
was not projected to continue to decline because growth in pilot
training requirements for the Air Force, the Navy, and the Army
offset decreases in other training categories. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS
----------------------------------------------------------- Letter :12

In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD generally
concurred with the report.  DOD made some general observations on
central training funding trends, which we incorporated in the report
where appropriate.  DOD's comments are reprinted in their entirety in
appendix VIII. 


   SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
----------------------------------------------------------- Letter :13

To identify trends in annual funding for central training and
personnel levels, we analyzed funding and personnel data from the
1998 FYDP for 1997-2003 and data obtained from prior years FYDPs for
1992-96.\9 We did not test DOD's management controls of the FYDP
data.  We adjusted the nominal dollars to constant 1998 dollars using
1998 DOD inflation indexes.  To identify trends in workload data, we
used data contained in each of the services' annual Operation and
Maintenance Justification of Estimates budget books submitted to
Congress for fiscal years 1994-98.  The services do not project
workload past the budget years and told us we should use the last
budget year's values for the remainder of the period we reviewed. 

The training programs analyzed were those that DOD categorized as
central training infrastructure and Defense-wide support training
mission.  Essentially, we accepted DOD's allocation of central
training infrastructure programs to the training categories.  We
assigned defensewide support training mission programs, including
health personnel training, that were not already categorized as
central training infrastructure to the most appropriate training
categories.  These Defense-wide support training mission programs
accounted for about 7 percent of the total value of central training
in 1998. 

We do not compare the training categories among the services because
the training categories do not contain the same programs and
activities within each service.  According to OSD and service
training officials, these differences would distort the comparisons. 

To determine the causes for the annual funding and workload trends
and to identify OSD and service efficiency and effectiveness
initiatives for central training programs, we interviewed officials
in OSD, and the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, and the Air Force
headquarters training divisions and training commands.  We did not
validate costs and savings associated with the initiatives. 
Additionally, we examined numerous DOD documents, including the
Military Manpower Training Report, the Military Training Structure
Review, DOD and service training directives and instructions, and DOD
and service budget documents.  We also reviewed reports that
pertained to military training that had been issued by us and by
other organizations.  In addition, we provided each of the services
with copies of our data analyses and questions about the trends.  We
have included their responses throughout the report, as appropriate. 

Our work was conducted from May 1997 through April 1998 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards. 


--------------------
\9 FYDP is the most comprehensive and continuous source of current
and historical defense resource data, and is used by DOD for
analytical purposes and for making programming and budgeting
decisions. 


--------------------------------------------------------- Letter :13.1

We are providing copies of this report to appropriate congressional
committees; the Secretaries of Defense, the Air Force, the Army, and
the Navy; the Commandant of the Marine Corps; and the Director,
Office of Management and Budget.  We will also provide copies to
other interested parties upon request. 

If you have any questions concerning this report, please call me on
(202) 512-3504.  Major contributors to this report are listed in
appendix IX. 

Sincerely yours,

Richard Davis
Director, National Security
 Analysis


CENTRAL TRAINING CATEGORIES
=========================================================== Appendix I

Central training consists of programs that furnish funding,
equipment, and personnel to provide nonunit, or central training of
defense personnel.  Central training activities provide for the
training of new personnel, multiple types of skill and proficiency
training, management of the central training system, and support of
central training installations. 

Administrative Support:  Includes management headquarters and visual
information activities that support central training activities. 

Installation Support:  Includes base operations and support, real
property maintenance activities, and base communications for central
training infrastructure. 

Command Managed Training Programs:  Includes nonunit training
activities managed by the operational commands.  These activities
include transition training into new weapon systems, supplemental
flying to maintain pilot proficiency, graduate flight training in
operational aircraft, and specialized mission flight training. 

General Central Training Activities:  Includes general support to the
training establishment and training developments.  These resources
provide training aids for troop schools and training schools. 

Health Personnel Training:  Includes the education and training of
health personnel at military and civilian training institutions,
health professional scholarship programs, University of the Health
Sciences, and other health personnel acquisition programs.  Although
the Department of Defense (DOD) categorizes these programs as central
medical infrastructure, we included them in central training because
DOD considers health personnel training a segment of its central
training mission. 

Training of New Personnel:  Includes recruit or accession training
and One-Station Unit Training. 

Officer Training and Academies:  Includes reserve officer training
corps, other college commissioning programs, officer training
schools, and the service academies. 

Aviation and Flight Training:  Includes flight screening,
undergraduate pilot training, navigator training, North Atlantic
Treaty Organization pilot training, and procurement of new training
aircraft. 

Professional and Skill Training:  Includes academic and professional
military education programs as well as multiple types of skill
training.  This category includes DOD's civilian training, education
and development, language training, undergraduate space training,
acquisition training, general skill training, and other professional
education. 


TWO APPROPRIATION CATEGORIES
ACCOUNT FOR MOST FUNDS
========================================================== Appendix II

Most funds for central training were in the military personnel and
operation and maintenance appropriations, 54.7 and 40.1 percent in
1998, respectively.  Military personnel appropriations fund pay and
allowances of instructors, support personnel, students, and trainees. 
The operation and maintenance appropriations fund civilian pay and
benefits, trainee support, resident instruction, local preparation of
training aids and training literature, procurement of supplies and
equipment, and contractual services.  The other appropriations that
fund central training are military construction; procurement; and
research, development, test, and evaluation.  These three were
projected to fund only about 5.3 percent of the total central
training budget in 1998. 

Four training categories--health personnel training, training of new
personnel, officer training and academies, and professional and skill
training--received most of their funds from military personnel
appropriations.  Four other training categories--administrative
support, installation support, command managed training, and general
central training--received most of their funds from operation and
maintenance appropriations.  The remaining training
category--aviation and flight training--received over 75 percent of
funding from operation and maintenance and military personnel
appropriations, and over 20 percent from procurement appropriations. 
Table II.1 shows this distribution for 1998. 



                                   Table II. 1
                     
                     Central Training Funding by Training and
                         Appropriation Category for 1998
                       (constant 1998 dollars in millions)

                                         Appropriation categories
                           -----------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Research,
                                                                       developme
                                       Milita   Operation              nt, test,
                             Military      ry         and                    and
                           constructi  person  maintenanc  Procuremen  evaluatio
Training categories                on     nel           e           t          n
-------------------------  ----------  ------  ----------  ----------  ---------
Administrative support                  $96.1      $170.5
Installation support           $224.5   624.9     2,522.9        $1.3
Command managed training               1,277.     2,050.4       102.9      $20.9
                                            9
General central training                191.0       484.4        11.1
Health personnel training               827.0       249.2
Training of new personnel              2,289.        52.8         1.8
                                            9
Officer training and              5.6   614.2       406.3         1.1
 academies
Aviation and flight               2.5   847.6       993.0       506.5       84.9
 training
Profesional and skill                  4,915.     1,631.0       168.0        1.4
 training                                   1
================================================================================
Total                          $232.6  $11,68    $8,560.5      $792.7     $107.2
                                          3.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  Our analysis of DOD Future Years Defense Programs (FYDP)
data. 


ANALYSIS OF ARMY CENTRAL TRAINING
CATEGORIES
========================================================= Appendix III

In 1998, the Army programmed approximately $7.3 billion for central
training programs and activities.  Most of these programs and
activities are managed by the U.S.  Army Training and Doctrine
Command and are conducted at Army schools.  The following provides a
detailed description of the Army's funding trends for the training
categories. 


   PROFESSIONAL AND SKILL TRAINING
   AND TRAINING OF NEW PERSONNEL
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:1

Funding for the professional and skill training category was
projected to fluctuate between 1992 and 1999, with declines from
1992-94 and 1997-2001 but increases from 1994-97 (see fig.  III.1). 
From 1999 through 2003, funds are projected to stabilize at about
$2.6 billion.  Funds follow workload closely except for the 1994-96
period when workload continued to decline and funding increased. 
During this period, the Army transferred Fort Ord, California, from
U.S.  Army Forces Command to the Army's Training and Doctrine
Command. 

   Figure III.1:  Funding and
   Workload for the Army's
   Professional and Skill Training
   Programs for 1992-2003
   (constant 1998 dollars in
   billions)

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  Our analysis of DOD FYDP data. 

Funds for the training of new personnel category fluctuated between
1992 and 1999, with declines from 1992-95 and 1997-99 but increases
from 1995-97.  From 1999 through 2003, funds are projected to
stabilize at about $1.4 billion.  Funds appear to follow workload
closely, as shown in figure III.2. 

   Figure III.2:  Funding and
   Workload for the Army's
   Training of New Personnel
   Programs for 1992-2003
   (constant 1998 dollars in
   billions)

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  Our analysis of DOD FYDP data. 

Note:  Army One-Station Unit Training [OSUT] combines recruit
training and initial skill training in certain skills into a single
course conducted by a single training unit at a single training
installation. 

According to Army training officials, the jump in funding for these
two categories after 1995 and 1996 was the result of increased
accessions to fill a void left from 1992 to 1995 when the Army held
accession rates below what was required to maintain a level end
strength.  The lower accession rate allowed the Army's end strength
to decline to 495,000.  The Army later increased accession rates to
maintain a level end strength, which raised the workload for training
of new personnel and professional and skill training. 


   INSTALLATION SUPPORT
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2

From 1992 to 2003, installation support funding was projected to
decline by about $634.9 million (31.2 percent), as shown in figure
III.3.  Funding for this category declined $432.8 million (21.3
percent) between 1992 and 1993.  For the 1994-2003 period, annual
funding was planned to fluctuate slightly between $1.6 and $1.4
billion.  Army training officials stated that the reduction was due
to savings resulting from efficiency efforts such as
outsourcing/privatizing installation support functions and upgrading
installation utilities such as central heating plants. 

   Figure III.3:  Funding for the
   Army's Installation Support for
   Training for 1992-2003
   (constant 1998 dollars in
   billions)

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  Our analysis of DOD FYDP data. 


   AVIATION AND FLIGHT TRAINING
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:3

Annual funding for the aviation and flight training category
decreased from $620.1 million in 1992 to $461.5 million in 1998, but
then increases by about $163 million (35 percent) through 2002, as
shown in figure III.4.  The projected increase is in the procurement
accounts. 

   Figure III.4:  Funding and
   Workload for the Army's
   Aviation and Flight Training
   Programs for 1992-2003
   (constant 1998 dollars in
   millions)

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  Our analysis of DOD FYDP data. 

The Army projected that the 2003 workload for aviation and flight
training would be 12.9 percent lower than in 1992.  Workload
decreased between 1992 and 1996, but subsequently increased through
1999.  According to Army training officials, the Army trained fewer
pilots than necessary to sustain level end strengths in the 1992-96
period.  During those years, the workload for aviation and flight
training decreased from 1,235 work years to 955 (a 22.7-percent
decline) as shown in figure III.4.  After 1996, the workload was
projected to increase to 1,076 work years (12.7 percent).  To
compensate for the low accession rates in the earlier years and to
sustain projected end strengths, the Army expects to train more
Warrant Officer pilots. 


   OFFICER TRAINING AND ACADEMIES
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:4

Funding for the officer training and academies category declined from
$447.5 million in 1992 to $381.8 million in 1996, a 14.7-percent
decrease.  Afterwards, annual funding was projected to remain
relatively constant at almost $400 million, as shown in figure III.5,
to maintain accessions at a rate that will support the authorized end
strength.  According to Army training officials, the funding
decreases resulted from lower accession rates for officers, and a
congressionally mandated reduction in U.S.  Military Academy cadet
end strength.  As shown in figure III.5, workload for officer
training and academies was projected to fall by 541 (11.5 percent)
work years from 1992 to 1999.  Average Reserve Officer Training Corps
(ROTC) enrollment declined over the 1992-97 period by 3,618 students
(8.6 percent). 

   Figure III.5:  Funding,
   Workload, and Average Annual
   ROTC Enrollment for the Army's
   Officer Training and Academy
   Programs for 1992-2003
   (constant 1998 dollars in
   millions)

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  Our analysis of DOD FYDP data. 


   GENERAL CENTRAL TRAINING,
   COMMAND MANAGED TRAINING, AND
   ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:5

General central training activities, command managed training, and
administrative support for training activities consume the remainder
of the Army's central training funds (an annual average of 11.5
percent).  As shown in figure III.6, funding for the general central
training category declined from $650.3 million in 1992 to $303.2
million in 1997, a decrease of 53.4 percent.  Subsequently, through
1999, funding was projected to increase by about $134 million (44
percent) to $437.5 million, before stabilizing at $431.3 million in
2003.  According to Army training officials, the increase in funds
will be used to support the training development of courseware that
supports the Army Distance Learning Plan and to implement the Total
Army School System.  The Army considers these programs essential to
improving the readiness of the Army personnel while reducing training
costs. 

   Figure III.6:  Funding for
   Three Army Central Training
   Categories for 1992-2003
   (constant 1998 dollars in
   millions)

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  Our analysis of DOD FYDP data. 

From 1992 through 1995, the Army funded command managed training at
levels that ranged from about $574 million to $754 million;
afterwards funding was projected to remain below $150 million, as
shown in
figure III.6.  According to Army training officials, the decrease
resulted from transferring funds from the central training
infrastructure to the direct support forces infrastructure.  These
funds were used for combat training centers, force training support,
and combat development activities. 

Annual funding for the administrative support category is also shown
in figure III.6.  This funding decreased from $133.4 million in 1992
to $131.2 million in 2003, or about 1.6 percent. 


ANALYSIS OF NAVY CENTRAL TRAINING
CATEGORIES
========================================================== Appendix IV

The Navy programmed $5.3 billion of its 1998 budget for central
training programs.  Most of these programs, except for graduate pilot
training activities, are managed by the Chief of Naval Education and
Training.  The following sections provide a detailed description of
the Navy's funding trends for the training categories. 


   PROFESSIONAL AND SKILL TRAINING
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:1

The majority of the Navy's central training funding decline was in
the professional and skill training category, which was funded at
about $2.7 billion in 1992 but was expected to fall to about $1.7 in
2003, a decline of about 39 percent, as shown in figure IV.1. 
According to Navy training officials, this reduction in funding
resulted from (1) base realignment and closure actions, which
resulted in the closing of major training centers and consolidating
courses,\1 (2) reduced accessions and end strengths, and (3) the
transfer of some advanced skill training courses from this category
to the command managed training category.  Over the 1992-2003 period,
the Navy's workload for this category declined every year except in
1996 for an overall decrease of 12,157 (35.2 percent) work years,
which reflects the decrease in funding, as shown in figure IV.1. 

   Figure IV.1:  Funding and
   Workload for the Navy's
   Professional and Skill Training
   Programs for 1992-2003
   (constant 1998 dollars in
   billions)

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  Our analysis of DOD FYDP data. 


--------------------
\1 For example, the Navy closed major training centers at Treasure
Island, California, Charleston, South Carolina, and Mare Island,
California.  The Navy also consolidated air warfare training at
Pensacola, Florida. 


   COMMAND MANAGED TRAINING
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:2

Between 1992 and 1997, funding for command managed training dropped
by over $300 million, but was projected to increase by about $80
million by 2003, as shown in figure IV.2.  According to Navy training
officials, the funding decrease through 1997 resulted from force
structure reductions, which led to a decrease in training workload. 
This decrease allowed the Navy to consolidate some training
activities.  According to the same officials, the growth in funding
after 1997 is related to the transfer of some courses previously
funded under the professional and skill training category and the
expected increased costs for aviation depot level repairable parts. 

   Figure IV.2:  Funding of the
   Navy's Command Managed Training
   Programs for 1992-2003
   (constant 1998 dollars in
   billions)

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  Our analysis of DOD FYDP data. 


   AVIATION AND FLIGHT TRAINING
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:3

Funding for the aviation and flight training category was projected
to decline from 1992 to 2003, except for a slight increase in the
1999-2001 period due primarily to growth in operation and maintenance
funding
(see fig.  IV.3).  The funding decline was projected to be 32.2
percent.  Navy training officials stated that an increase in the
pilot training rate increases operation and maintenance requirements. 
According to the officials, the pilot training rate had been
deliberately set below a level that would maintain a steady state
force structure in order to reduce the number of aviators in the
training pipeline.  However, by 1994, the Navy had determined that
the rate was too low and that there were not enough pilots in
training to accommodate increased pilot requirements.  Also, the Navy
increased pilot requirements in 1995 by adding two F/A-18 squadrons,
retaining two F-14 squadrons that had been scheduled for retirement,
and increasing the number of pilots required for P-3 squadrons. 
Another factor leading to increased operation and maintenance
requirements was the outsourcing or the conversion of Navy air
traffic controller positions from military to civilian personnel. 

   Figure IV.3:  Funding and
   Workload for the Navy's
   Aviation and Flight Training
   Programs for 1992-2003
   (constant 1998 dollars in
   billions)

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  Our analysis of DOD FYDP data. 


   TRAINING OF NEW PERSONNEL
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:4

Funding for the training of new personnel was projected to fall $455
million (65.5 percent) between 1992 and 1999, and then to increase
slightly through 2003, as shown in figure IV.4.  According to Navy
training officials, the service reduced its end strength for recruit
accessions by over 50 percent from 1992 to 2003 and closed two
recruit training centers as a result of base closure and realignment
actions,\2 which resulted in the funding decline.  The workload for
this category decreased by
585 work years (6.2 percent) from 1992 to 2003.  Between 1992 and
1996, workload decreased by 1,206 work years (12.8 percent), but
after 1996, it increased by 7.5 percent, as shown in figure IV.4. 

   Figure IV.4:  Funding and
   Workload for Navy's Training of
   New Personnel Programs for
   1992-2003 (constant 1998
   dollars in millions)

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  Our analysis of DOD FYDP data. 


--------------------
\2 During this period, the Navy closed recruit training commands,
Orlando, Florida, and San Diego, California, and consolidated recruit
training at Great Lakes, Illinois. 


   INSTALLATION SUPPORT
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:5

Funding for this category was projected to decline by about $227
million between 1992 and 2003, as shown in figure IV.5.  Military
personnel and operation and maintenance funding for the category
declined by approximately $174 million and $31 million, respectively. 
According to Navy training officials, these decreases resulted from
base closure and realignment actions discussed earlier,
civilianization or contracting out of military billets, and reduced
accessions and training requirements. 

   Figure IV.5:  Funding of the
   Navy's Installation Support for
   Training for 1992-2003
   (constant 1998 dollars in
   millions)

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  Our analysis of DOD FYDP data. 


   OFFICER TRAINING AND ACADEMIES
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:6

As shown in figure IV.6, funding for this category was projected to
decline from $371.5 million in 1992 to $277.9 million in 2003, a
25.2-percent reduction.  The largest annual decline (10.7 percent)
occurred between 1992 and 1993.  For the remainder of the period, the
decline was expected to be gradual.  The overall workload for this
category was projected to fall by 1,677 work years (13.6 percent)
over the 1992-2003 period, as shown in figure IV.6.  This decline was
the result of reducing the number of (1) midshipmen at the U.S. 
Naval Academy from 4,500 to 4,000 between fiscal year 1990 and 1995,
as statutorily required and (2) military staff and military students
in other college commissioning programs. 

   Figure IV.6:  Funding and
   Workload for the Navy's Officer
   Training and Academy Programs
   for 1992-2003 (constant 1998
   dollars in millions)

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  Our analysis of DOD FYDP data. 


   GENERAL CENTRAL TRAINING AND
   ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:7

The two remaining training categories--general central training and
administrative support--receive only 3.2 percent of average annual
Navy central training funds.  Funding for the general central
training category declined from $240.6 million in 1992 to $148
million in 2003.  Most of this decline occurred between 1992 and 1993
($78.9 million of the total $92.6 million falloff).  For the
remainder of the period we reviewed, the funding level for this
category fluctuated.  Administrative support was planned to receive
only $23.3 million in 1998, and has averaged less than one-half of a
percent of annual Navy central training funding.  Administrative
support programs declined more than 55 percent over the 12 years we
reviewed (see fig.  IV.7). 

   Figure IV.7:  Funding for Two
   Navy Central Training
   Categories for 1992-2003
   (constant 1998 dollars in
   millions)

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  Our analysis of DOD FYDP data. 


ANALYSIS OF AIR FORCE CENTRAL
TRAINING CATEGORIES
=========================================================== Appendix V

In 1998, the Air Force planned to spend approximately $5.8 billion on
individual training programs.  Most of these programs, except
specific graduate flight training, supplemental flying to maintain
pilot proficiency, and specialized mission flight training, are
managed by the Air Force's Air Education and Training Command.  The
following provides a detailed description of the Air Force's funding
trends for the training categories. 


   COMMAND MANAGED TRAINING
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:1

The majority of funds in the command managed training category are
for graduate flight training, training used to familiarize new
crewmembers with the missions of their operating squadrons, and
supplemental flight training.  As shown in figure V.1, funding for
this category was projected to increase from $1.7 billion to $2
billion (15 percent) between 1992 and 2003, and fluctuate
substantially during the 1994 to 1998 period.  According to Air Force
training officials, pilots trained during the force structure
drawdown that were excess to the Air Force's needs were "banked" by
placing them in nonflying positions.  During the 1994-96 period,
these pilots were requalified using funds from this category.  Pilot
production was reduced, and the drawdown of the banked pilots was
accelerated so that the "bank" was depleted by the end of fiscal year
1996.  Beginning in fiscal year 1998, graduate pilot training
workload was projected to increase as a larger number of pilots
complete undergraduate pilot training. 

   Figure V.1:  Funding of the Air
   Force's Command Managed
   Training Programs for 1992-2003
   (constant 1998 dollars in
   billions)

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  Our analysis of DOD FYDP data. 


   PROFESSIONAL AND SKILL TRAINING
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:2

Funding for the professional and skill training category was
projected to remain relatively stable throughout the period reviewed,
as shown in figure V.2.  Although there have been some slight shifts
in funding from year to year, the Air Force projected funding at $1.4
billion for 2003, the same as the 1992 level.  Although the Air
Force's end strength has declined, and was projected to continue to
decline, the student workloads for this type of training were
projected to increase after fiscal year 1996.  According to Air Force
training officials, since 1989, Guard and Reserve training
requirements have increased, and the Air Force has taken the lead in
providing training to other servicemembers (3,000 additional students
annually) for such programs as navigator training, fire protection,
air base ground defense, law enforcement and correction, and air
intelligence.  Between 1994 and 1999, the workload for this category
was projected to increase 36.6 percent. 

   Figure V.2:  Funding and
   Workload for the Air Force's
   Professional and Skill Training
   Programs for 1992-2003
   (constant 1998 dollars in
   billions)

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  Our analysis of DOD FYDP data. 

In fiscal year 1992, the Air Force initiated broad, servicewide
improvements in its training establishment, called the "Year of
Training" initiatives, which helped maintain the stable annual
funding level of professional and skill training between 1992 and
1996 as workload and end strength fell.  The objective of the
training restructuring effort was to build a coherent education and
training architecture to improve the quality of education and
training programs.  Two key components of this plan were the
establishment of an initial and advanced skills training course for
each Air Force specialty.  The training restructuring effort required
additional funding above prior year levels to pay for the development
of new courses, increase course frequency, and additional student
workloads.  According to the Air Force, centralizing this training
has reduced the need for on-the-job training at operational units and
produced more graduates capable of functioning at the apprentice
level upon arrival at their first duty station. 


   AVIATION AND FLIGHT TRAINING
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:3

Funding for aviation and flight training was projected to be at about
$1.1 billion in 2003, the same level as in 1992, as shown in figure
V.3.  Funding fell between 1992 and 1996, from $1.1 billion to $747.2
million, or about 31 percent, and then increased thereafter.  As
mentioned previously, the Air Force had banked pilots in nonflying
positions during the force drawdown.  Due to the availability of
banked pilots, new pilot production reached its lowest level since
1950.  Flight training workloads fell 32 percent between fiscal year
1992 and 1995, from 1,945 work years to 1,323 work years.  According
to the Air Force, during this time period, the Air Force started its
new specialized undergraduate pilot training program and introduced a
new flight screening aircraft, both of which lowered total flight
training costs. 

   Figure V.3:  Funding and
   Workload for the Air Force's
   Aviation and Flight Training
   Programs for 1992-2003
   (constant 1998 dollars in
   billions)

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  Our analysis of DOD FYDP data. 

Funding for flight training was projected to increase annually
between 1996 and 2003, for a total increase of almost 50 percent to
$1.1 billion.  During this period, workload was projected to increase
by 40.2 percent.  The closure of the pilot bank in fiscal year 1996,
and greater stability in the force structure, required the Air Force
to increase undergraduate pilot production to maintain a projected
force of 14,000 pilots.  Also, due to low retention rates, the Air
Force determined that it needed to produce 1,145 pilots annually, but
it currently only produces about 650 a year due to training capacity
constraints and instructor pilot shortages.  The service plans to
increase the number of pilots trained annually until it reaches its
annual goal.  Also, as part of the Air Force's consolidation of
training functions, the Introduction to Fighter Fundamentals program
was transferred to the Air Education and Training Command from the
Air Combat Command in 1996.  The transfer included aircraft,
instructors, contract support, other manpower support, and
supplies/equipment. 


   INSTALLATION SUPPORT
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:4

Funding for installation support for training was projected to fall
almost annually over the 1992 to 1999 period, from $1.1 billion in
1992 to $769.6 million in 1999, a 27.7-percent decline (see fig. 
V.4).  The Air Force closed/realigned two technical training bases
and two flight training bases during fiscal years 1993 and 1994,
which substantially reduced base operating costs.\1 In addition,
funding for real property maintenance and base operations was
deliberately lowered in 1997 to pay for other high priority mission
requirements, but no funds were provided in 1998 and 1999.  During
the 1992-99 period, the Air Force also planned to contract out
workload through A-76 contracts at all training bases. 

   Figure V.4:  Funding for the
   Air Force's Installation
   Support for Training for
   1992-2003 (constant 1998
   dollars in millions)

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  Our analysis of DOD FYDP data. 

After 1999, installation support funding was projected to increase
slightly each year to $849.3 million by 2003.  Air Force training
officials stated that this increase is due to two factors.  First,
the majority of the increase is for the migration of base support
requirements to Lackland Air Force Base, Texas, an Air Education and
Training Command installation, due to the closure of Kelly Air Force
Base, Texas.  Second, contracting for real property maintenance was
funded at less than normal levels from 1997-99 and at "normal" levels
thereafter. 


--------------------
\1 The two technical training bases closed were Chanute Air Force
Base (AFB), Illinois, and Lowry AFB, Colorado.  The training missions
supported by these bases were realigned to the remaining four
training centers.  The two flying training wings closed were at
Williams AFB, Arizona, and Mather AFB, California.  Pilot production
from Williams AFB was spread among the remaining flying training
wings, and navigator training was relocated from Mather AFB to
Randolph AFB, Texas. 


   OFFICER TRAINING AND ACADEMIES
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:5

Annual funding for the officer training and academies category,
officer accession workload,\2 and average Air Force Reserve Officer
Training Corps (AFROTC) enrollment were planned to remain relatively
stable as shown in figure V.5.  Funding for this category averages
5.3 percent of the Air Force's annual central training funding.  Over
90 percent of the funding for this category pays for the U.S.  Air
Force Academy and the AFROTC.  Air Force training officials stated
that during the drawdown, to minimize involuntary separations, the
Air Force accessed officers at only 85 percent of what was required
to sustain projected outyear end strength.  In addition, the U.S. 
Air Force Academy reduced its annual cadet end strength by 10
percent, to about 4,000, as mandated by Congress.  To meet officer
requirements, the Air Force increased funding annually for more
AFROTC scholarships from fiscal year 1994 onward.  The increase also
paid for higher tuition costs.  In fiscal years 1998 and 1999, some
of the increased AFROTC scholarship costs were offset by
closures/consolidations of some AFROTC detachments. 

   Figure V.5:  Funding, Workload,
   and Average Annual ROTC
   Enrollment for the Air Force's
   Officer Training and Academy
   Programs for 1992-2003
   (constant 1998 dollars in
   millions)

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  GAO analysis of DOD FYDP data. 

During the period reviewed, the proportion of annual officer training
and academy funding from military personnel and operation and
maintenance appropriations changed substantially, and a greater
proportion of funding for this category was projected to come from
operation and maintenance appropriations.  Military personnel and
operation and maintenance appropriations provided about 74 and 22.8
percent, respectively, of funding for this category in 1992, but by
2003, the proportion of funding from these appropriation categories
was projected to be 63.4 and 36 percent, respectively.  According to
the Air Force, much of this change is due to two directives.  The
Fiscal Year 1993 Defense Authorization Act directed the U.S.  Air
Force Academy to increase the ratio of civilians on the faculty.  In
addition, an Inspector General audit directed the Academy to convert
196 military positions to civilians.  The civilian faculty conversion
began in fiscal year 1993, and it is planned to continue through
fiscal year 2000, increasing annual operation and maintenance
funding, while decreasing military personnel appropriations. 


--------------------
\2 Officer accession workload includes the U.S.  Air Force Academy
and the Officer Candidate School. 


   TRAINING OF NEW PERSONNEL
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:6

Recruit training was projected to receive, on average, about 3.2
percent of annual individual training funds between 1992 and 2003. 
The annual level of funding for this category was projected to be
lower in 2003 than in 1992, as shown in figure V.6.  However, recruit
training workload was projected to be slightly higher (7.4 percent)
in the 1999-2003 period than in 1992. 

   Figure V.6:  Funding and
   Workload for the Air Force's
   Training of New Personnel
   Programs for 1992-2003
   (constant 1998 dollars in
   millions)

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  Our analysis of DOD FYDP data. 


   ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT AND
   GENERAL CENTRAL TRAINING
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:7

These two categories were projected to receive, on average, less than
2 percent each of annual Air Force central training funds.  The
annual funding levels for these two categories are displayed in
figure V.7.  Most administrative support funds are for training
headquarters and visual information activities for training.  The
general central training category includes funding for training
aids/literature for schools and the development of training
technology and instructional systems. 

   Figure V.7:  Funding for Two
   Air Force Central Training
   Categories for 1992-2003
   (constant 1998 dollars in
   millions)

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  Our analysis of DOD FYDP data. 


ANALYSIS OF MARINE CORPS CENTRAL
TRAINING CATEGORIES
========================================================== Appendix VI

The Marine Corps projected that it would spend $1.8 billion on
individual training programs in 1998.  The Commanding General of the
Marine Corps Combat Development Command manages the Marine Corps'
schools.  The following provides a detailed description of the Marine
Corps' funding trends for the training categories. 


   TRAINING OF NEW PERSONNEL
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VI:1

Funding for recruit training was projected to increase annually
(except for 1994) between 1992 and 1999, from $388.6 million to
$497.3 billion
(see fig.  VI.1).  Workload was also projected to increase over this
period from 7,270 to 9,168 work years.  Recruit training workload and
funding reflect the Marine Corps' plan to increase the percentage of
first term enlistees in the Marines.  The consequence of this
increase in the percentage of enlistees is a higher turnover rate,
which requires more accessions and recruit training to meet targeted
end strength.  Another major reason for the growth in the planned
cost of recruit training is the increase in the course length of
basic military training from 77 days to 88 days, implemented in
fiscal year 1997. 

   Figure VI.1:  Funding and
   Workload for the Marine Corps'
   Training of New Personnel
   Programs for 1992-2003
   (constant 1998 dollars in
   millions)

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  Our analysis of DOD FYDP data. 


   PROFESSIONAL AND SKILL TRAINING
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VI:2

Funding for professional and skill training programs was projected to
decline by 15 percent over the 1992-2003 period, from $837.7 million
to $711.7 million, while workload was projected to grow from 7,878 to
10,348 work years, as shown in figure VI.2.  This increase in
workload was offset by a 16.1-percent fall off in the number of
military personnel assigned to this training category. 

   Figure VI.2:  Funding and
   Workload for the Marine Corps'
   Professional and Skill Training
   Programs for 1992-2003
   (constant 1998 dollars in
   millions)

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  Our analysis of DOD FYDP data. 


   INSTALLATION SUPPORT
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VI:3

Installation support funding was programmed to fall 6 percent between
1992 and 2003 (see fig.  VI.3).  Between 1992 and 1995, funding fell
$29.3 million (11.6 percent); over three-quarters of this decline
occurred between 1992 and 1993 due to sharp decreases in annual
funding of both environmental compliance and base operations. 
According to the Marine Corps, some of the continued decline was due
to a realignment of base support resources.  For example, in 1994,
the Marine Corps reduced its funding for the support of training
bases to increase funding for basic and advanced skills initiatives
at Marine Corps detachments.  According to the Marine Corps, prior to
1996, there were also declines in the costs of base support contracts
and in base support equipment purchases, utilities, and supplies in
1994 and 1995. 

   Figure VI.3:  Funding for the
   Marine Corps' Installation
   Support for Training for
   1992-2003 (constant 1998
   dollars in millions)

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  Our analysis of DOD FYDP data. 

In 1996, funding for base support grew 13.6 percent over the 1995
level to $253.4 million, slightly higher than the funding level for
this category in 1992.  According to the Marine Corps, this increase
was due to several factors.  First, the Marine Corps planned to
procure new and replacement furniture and equipment in bachelor
quarters, administrative offices, and mess halls.  Second, funding
was added for maintenance, repairs, and minor construction for the
revitalization of bachelor enlisted quarters and the historical
buildings at the Marine Corps Barracks in Washington, D.C.  Third,
environmental compliance funding increased significantly to meet more
stringent federal, state, and local regulations for air pollution
control and wastewater discharge limits as well as improvements to
underground storage tank equipment.  Finally, during 1996 there was a
one-time cost associated with the move of the Deputy Chief of Staff
for Manpower and Reserve Affairs Department from Headquarters, Marine
Corps, in Washington, D.C., to Marine Corps Combat Development
Command, Quantico, Virginia. 


   COMMAND MANAGED TRAINING
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VI:4

Annual funding for the command managed training category grew
56.7 percent, from $118.1 million in 1992 to $185.2 million in 1997,
due to increases in procurement of training systems but was planned
to drop in both 1998 and 1999 (16.5 and 3.6 percent, respectively). 
After 1999, the funding was projected to increase slightly through
fiscal year 2003 to $176.3 million.  These trends are shown in figure
VI.4. 

   Figure VI.4:  Funding for the
   Marine Corps' Command Managed
   Training Programs for 1992-2003
   (constant 1998 dollars in
   millions)

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  Our analysis of DOD FYDP data. 


   AVIATION AND FLIGHT TRAINING
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VI:5

The aviation and flight training category was projected to receive
less funding in 2003 than in 1992, as shown in figure VI.5.  The
Marine Corps' flight training is provided by the other services.  The
Marine Corps provides a minimum amount of funds for operation and
maintenance to administratively support Marine officers assigned to
duty in undergraduate flight training at other services' bases. 

   Figure VI.5:  Funding for the
   Marine Corps' Aviation and
   Flight Training Programs for
   1992-2003 (constant 1998
   dollars in millions)

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  Our analysis of DOD FYDP data. 


   OFFICER TRAINING
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VI:6

Funding for this category was projected to fall by 28.6 percent
between 1992 and 2003, primarily between 1992 and 1997, as shown in
figure VI.6.  Workload for the Marine Corps' commissioning program
actually increased from 364 work years in fiscal year 1992 to 380
work years in fiscal year 1997.  The Marine Corps projected that the
workload would continue to increase through fiscal year 2003 to 426
work years. 

   Figure VI.6:  Funding and
   Workload for the Marine Corps'
   Officer Training Programs for
   1992-2003 (constant 1998
   dollars in millions)

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  Our analysis of DOD FYDP data. 


   GENERAL CENTRAL TRAINING AND
   ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VI:7

General central training activities and administrative support for
training were collectively projected to receive an average of about
4.2 percent of annual Marine Corps central training funds and less
than $75 million annually (see fig.  VI.7).  Administrative support
for training was projected to receive less than one-quarter of 1
percent throughout the entire period reviewed. 

   Figure VI.7:  Funding for Two
   Marine Corps Central Training
   Categories for 1992-2003
   (constant 1998 dollars in
   millions)

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  Our analysis of DOD FYDP data. 


INITIATIVES TO REDUCE TRAINING
COSTS OR ENHANCE TRAINING
EFFICIENCY AND/OR EFFECTIVENESS
========================================================= Appendix VII

DOD and the services have used or plan to use several programs to
make training more effective, less costly, or both.  Three major
efforts discussed below are designed to bring about intra- and
inter-service course consolidations; distance learning to improve the
efficiency of instruction; the acquisition of new equipment and
technology to support training and reduce the total cost of training;
and private sector cooperation to accelerate the applications of new
learning technologies. 


   INTERSERVICE TRAINING REVIEW
   ORGANIZATION
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VII:1

DOD established the Interservice Training Review Organization (ITRO)
in 1972 to improve the cost-effectiveness and efficiency of service
training consistent with individual service requirements.  ITRO's
role is to facilitate the consolidation/collocation of similar
occupational and training courses managed by the services. 
Participation in ITRO is voluntary, and therefore, a service can
reject recommended course consolidations.  The implementing
regulations make no provision for oversight by the Office of the
Secretary of Defense (OSD) or the Joint Chiefs of Staff. 
Regulations, however, discourage major capital investments for
consolidation and state that if major capital investment is required,
savings should offset the investment within 10 years.  Today, ITRO is
focusing on ways to improve training efficiency/effectiveness through
more extensive use of technology, and continuing efforts to
consolidate courses. 

Interservice training regulations govern the process to
consolidate/collocate courses.  Serviceable training materials and
equipment are transferred to a host service without reimbursement to
the donating services.  The participating services should provide the
proportionate share of instructor and school support personnel to the
host service in order to support consolidated training.  When a
course is consolidated, the host service is responsible for making
changes to the course so that it complies with the new curriculum
that all of the participating services have approved.  The
participating services must also provide the host service with an
estimate of their need for school graduates (estimated trained
personnel requirements).  The host service will, in turn, provide
training positions and facilities for students from other
participating services. 

ITRO is working to overcome some obstacles to the consolidation of
courses.  The host service historically has not been reimbursed for
the additional costs of training the other services' personnel. 
Recent draft ITRO regulations have established ground rules for
resource transfers.  Also, the services have not always provided
their proportionate share of support.  For example, the Army,
following a base closure, agreed informally with the Navy to relocate
two courses to Fort Eustis, Virginia, where Army and Navy students
would be trained.  A study in 1997 established the Navy's fair share
bill for these courses, and the Navy training command agreed to pay. 
Later, Navy headquarters told the Navy training command that it would
not receive funding for the joint courses, and now the Navy wants to
establish its own version of the same courses at a Navy facility
using different resources. 

One factor limiting course consolidations is the unavailability of
facilities for interservice classes.  While it may seem logical to
consolidate similar courses at one location, it may be costly to
build the facilities necessary for the increased training workload
from consolidated courses.  Also, different service standards impact
consolidation decisions.  For example, the services have different
housing standards for their students.  The cost to consolidate a
course would be affected if the host service has to upgrade existing
housing facilities to accomodate higher standards. 

As part of the Roles and Missions effort, in November 1992, the
Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, asked the service chiefs, through
ITRO, to conduct a thorough review of all technical and operations
technical training across three functional areas:  combat service
support, combat support, and combat operations.  This review, known
as the Military Training Structure Review, was conducted over 3
years, January 1993 to December 1995, to eliminate unnecessary
duplication of like training across the services.  Of the two types
of training, institutional and unit, only institutional or formal
school training programs were reviewed to meet the prescribed 3-year
time constraint.  The Review's scope was limited to
initial/entry-level training. 

Four tenets were established to guide the review.  First, eliminate
duplication, create cost savings, and develop single-site training
where feasible.  Second, use a systems approach that considers
factors such as cost, personnel, and infrastructure and their impact
on the services.  Third, establish an essential long-term
perspective, unconstrained by a short-term initial startup cost, to
posture for optimum out-year training capability.  Finally, provide
recommendations consistent with the readiness, responsibilities, and
requirements of the services. 

ITRO identified similar courses for possible
consolidation/collocation.  ITRO identified 49 occupational training
areas,\1 consisting of 1,517 military training courses,\2 for
possible consolidation/collocation.  Of the courses considered, 128
were consolidated/collocated.  ITRO reported that nearly 50,000
students would be trained in a consolidated/collocated
environment--41 percent of that number from the Army, 24 percent Air
Force, 20 percent Navy, and 15 percent from the Marine Corps.  As a
result of the Review, DOD reported it will realize an estimated
annual recurring savings of $8.2 million for a one-time cost of $9.4
million, with a payback period of 1.1 years. 

A specific example where ITRO directed consolidations involves dental
technicians.  The Army trained dental specialists, the Air Force
trained dental assistant specialists, and the Navy trained dental
technicians, before the Review.  The ITRO Executive Board recommended
that all of these courses, plus several similar ones, be consolidated
at Sheppard Air Force Base, Texas.  The Board determined that there
would be a one-time cost of $633,000 for this consolidation but
annual recurring savings of $218,000 would accrue. 

Today, ITRO is monitoring the implementation of the Review's
recommendations, evaluating training technology initiatives, and
continuing efforts to consolidate courses. 


--------------------
\1 Examples of occupational training areas include aviation
maintenance, basic medical specialist, calibration, transportation,
and law enforcement/corrections. 

\2 Examples of specific military courses include aviation munitions,
aircraft systems, medical specialist, calibration, micro
measurements, traffic management, military police training, and Navy
security guard personnel training. 


   DISTANCE LEARNING
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VII:2

Distance learning is structured training that can take place almost
anywhere and anytime without the physical presence of a student at a
resident training institution.  Distance learning can be facilitated
by newer technology such as computers, video conferencing, the
Internet, and satellite communications, or older means such as
correspondence courses. 

DOD is emphasizing distance learning concepts today for several
reasons.  First is the changing nature of the tasks assigned to the
U.S.  military.  Missions other than war, such as peacekeeping, drug
interdiction, and disaster relief, may require rapid ad hoc
preparations for unusual contingencies.  Distance learning can
rapidly disseminate information developed for those missions. 
Second, it can increase force readiness by providing geographically
dispersed personnel better access to training.  Finally, DOD believes
that downsizing means that it is less able to afford the time and
resources needed to assemble students in a single location to provide
training.  Distance learning can increase the cost-effectiveness of
training delivery systems by reducing the central training
infrastructure and eliminating some of the travel costs associated
with individual training. 

To implement a distance learning program, we reported that a
substantial investment will be required.\3 OSD officials estimated
that DOD would need to invest as much as $2 billion for distance
learning over the next
10 years.  Even though estimated savings through the increased use of
distance learning is an important factor in justifying the programs,
the services have not developed a method to quantify the total
savings.  However, the Army estimates that it will achieve over $900
million in operation and maintenance savings and cost avoidances from
1998 to 2010. 

OSD has facilitated the coordination of the services' distance
learning plans and activities by sponsoring working groups to
facilitate the increased use of distance learning and publishing
specifications and guidance for military training products.  For
example, DOD issued an instruction that mandated standards for
interactive courseware.  Although OSD has actively promoted
collaboration among the services, it has not developed a
departmentwide strategy to focus service efforts.  As a result, each
of the services is pursuing its own distance learning strategy. 
Service officials noted that having a departmentwide strategy could
prevent duplicative efforts, and inadequate sharing of resources and
attention to the needs of both active and reserve forces. 

Not all courses, however, can be taught by distance learning.  The
services must review thousands of courses to determine which can be
taught via distance learning technologies.  After reviewing 2,000
courses, the Army plans to convert about 525 traditional courses to
distance learning and has estimated that it would cost about $20
million in 1998 to convert 31 of these courses.  The Air Force has
about 4,000 courses that it must review for conversion.  In fiscal
year 1999, the Air Force plans to fund one-time start up funding for
distance learning equipment and software.  The Navy is reviewing
about 4,000 courses and the Marine Corps plans to review about 250
courses for conversion to distance learning. 

In addition to determining the number of courses that can be taught
through distance learning, training developers must determine the
best and most cost-effective media for delivering distance learning. 
From 1989 to 1994, the Army conducted pilot studies to determine the
effectiveness of training with five distance learning technologies: 
video teletraining, computer conferencing, computer-based
instruction, voice-based computer-based instruction, and desktop
video production.  The Army concluded that the instructional delivery
medium would not significantly affect training effectiveness compared
with traditional face-to-face training and that distance learning
could significantly decrease the time a soldier is absent from his
home station, thereby reducing travel and per diem costs. 

Along with developing the distance learning courses, the services
must establish facilities and acquire the necessary communications
equipment to transmit their distance learning courses.  The Army, for
example, is planning to establish 745 distance learning classrooms
that will be linked through a commercial telecommunications network. 
The Army currently has 100 television network sites that have
delivered 30,000 hours of training to at least 100,000 Army, Air
Force, Navy, Marine Corps, and civilian students in fiscal year 1996. 

Today, all of the services have begun to incorporate distance
learning technology into their training programs.  The Army is the
only service that has a formally documented distance learning plan,
which has been endorsed by the Deputy Secretary of Defense as a model
for developing and implementing the concept.  The plan establishes
critical milestones and funding requirements for both active and
reserve forces. 

The Air Force has used a satellite broadcast network for distance
learning since 1992.  The Air Force has increased the amount of
network broadcast hours from less than 500 in 1992 to 2,000 in 1996,
and it projects that it will use 4,500 broadcast hours by 1999. 
Today, the network reaches every U.S.  base. 

The Air Force Reserve leases its satellite network equipment from the
Army and uses the Army's television network system.  The Air Force
Reserve has 46 Army video teletraining sites that are capable of both
two-way video and audio and has five Air Force network sites that
receive programs from the active Air Force satellite broadcast
network.  The Air Force Reserve system broadcasted 2,800 hours in
fiscal year 1996.  The Air National Guard uses the same satellite
broadcast system as the active Air Force and maintains 202 of its own
sites that can receive broadcasted courses. 

The Navy has a video teletraining network that is used for both
distance learning and teleconferencing.  The system uses satellites
to broadcast to ships at sea and telecommunication lines to deliver
courses on shore.  The system, which consists of 19 sites and 25
classrooms, is available 24 hours every day and is used an average of
10 hours per day, 5 days a week.  In 1997, the Navy offered 52
courses through its network.  Also, in 1997, the Marine Corps
established the Marine Corps Institute On-Line learning capability,
which will make courseware accessible to all Marines via interactive
courseware across the Internet. 


--------------------
\3 Distance Learning:  Opportunities Exist for DOD to Capitalize on
Services' Efforts (GAO/NSIAD-98-63R, Dec.  18, 1997). 


   ADVANCED DISTRIBUTED LEARNING
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VII:3

On November 4, 1997, the White House Office of Science and Technology
Policy and DOD launched the Advanced Distributed Learning (ADL)
initiative.  The purpose of the ADL initiative is to ensure access to
high quality education and training materials that can be tailored to
individual needs and can be made available whenever and wherever they
are required.  The initiative is intended to accelerate application
of new learning technologies to reduce the total cost of training,
enhance performance, and maintain readiness.  ADL supports the
development of distance learning, as well as programs that enhance
job performance. 

The origins of ADL, however, can be traced to the Quadrennial Defense
Review in which DOD reviewed America's defense needs from 1997 to
2015.  The Review looked for high-payoff opportunities for
modernizing training while enhancing future readiness.  It called for
distributed and just-in-time training wherever possible, as well as
Internet-based development, delivery, and feedback for training.  The
ADL initiative is part of the strategy to accomplish these goals. 

The ADL initiative is designed to accelerate large-scale development
of dynamic and cost-effective learning software and to stimulate an
efficient market for these products in order to meet the education
and training needs of the military and the nation's workforce in the
21st Century.  It hopes to do this through the development of a
common technical framework for computer and network-based learning
that will foster the creation of reusable learning content as
instructional modules.  DOD envisions ADL as a collaborative effort
among DOD, other government agencies, education communities, and the
private sector.  It also thinks that many university and business
training organizations are interested in the same kind of system. 
Several public and private organizations have expressed an interest
in the ADL initiative, including Boeing, General Motors, IBM,
Microsoft, Netscape, Oracle, Sun, and universities in North Carolina,
Florida, California, and Massachusetts. 

On January 30, 1998, the President issued a memorandum to the heads
of all executive branch departments and agencies that addressed
enhancing learning and education through technology.  The President
tasked agencies to develop a model technical approach to facilitate
electronic instruction and offered the ADL initiative as an example
to follow. 

ADL's strategy is to (1) promote widespread collaboration, (2)
exploit Internet technologies, (3) develop the next generation of
learning technologies, (4) create reusable modular courseware, and
(5) lower total costs of training and education. 

According to OSD training officials, the heart of the ADL initiative
will be the development of reusable modular courseware that will be
available to all through the Internet.  Since a portion of DOD
training is core material that does not change over time, DOD will be
able to reuse these core modules, as well as many applications and
utilities.  Only certain modules would need to be updated regularly,
which would be less costly than completely revising an entire course. 

Some of the courseware will be applicable to private training needs
as well as DOD's needs.  For example, the services train personnel in
wheeled vehicle maintenance, as does General Motors.  Therefore,
courseware and job performance aids might be developed jointly to
meet the needs of both parties and be network-based for delivery,
feedback, and management.  Some of the courseware may already be
developed, and through collaboration with industry, DOD may be able
to capitalize on what is available in private industry. 

The ADL participants have established a three-phased approach for
designing the ADL concept that will run through June 1999.  During
Phase I, participants will develop and refine functional and
technical requirements and identify opportunities for collaboration. 
Phase II is expected to consist of issuing initial guidelines for a
common ADL framework and building and testing pilot models.  During
Phase III, the participants will finalize an ADL framework and build
and test additional modules.  At the time of our review, DOD had not
estimated the costs nor the savings from implementing the ADL
initiative. 




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


MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
========================================================== Appendix IX

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

Robert Pelletier
Edna Thea Falk
Dale Wineholt

NORFOLK FIELD OFFICE

Gaines R.  Hensley
Patricia Lentini


*** End of document. ***