Military Housing: Status of the Services' Implementation of the Current
Barracks Design Standard (Letter Report, 03/24/99, GAO/NSIAD-99-52).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the Department of
Defense's (DOD) barracks program in the United States, focusing on: (1)
the status of the services' implementation of the 1 plus 1 barracks
design standard, which calls for more space and increased privacy in new
barracks; (2) DOD's rationale for adopting the standard; (3) the costs
of alternatives for the 1 plus 1 standard; and (4) service views of the
impact of the standard from a team-building, individual isolation, or
similar perspective.

GAO noted that: (1) except for the Marine Corps, the services embraced
the 1 plus 1 barracks design standard and in fiscal year (FY) 1996 began
building new and renovating older barracks to conform to the new
standard; (2) in fiscal years 1996-99, about $1.5 billion in funding was
approved for 124 military construction projects designed to provide over
29,000 barracks spaces meeting the 1 plus 1 design standard; (3) also,
to provide increased privacy in existing barracks over a phased time
period, the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force plan to assign one member
to existing rooms designed for two members and two members to existing
rooms designed for three members; (4) when required, the barracks
capacity lost through this practice will be regained through
construction of new 1 plus 1 barracks; (5) in lieu of the 1 plus 1
design, the Marine Corps is building new barracks with two-person
sleeping rooms for junior Marines; (6) DOD justified the adoption of the
1 plus 1 standard primarily as an investment in quality of life aimed at
improving military readiness and retention; (7) although barracks
improvements do enhance individuals' quality of life, to what degree is
unknown because quality of life is inherently difficult to quantify; (8)
DOD has not developed any direct, quantitative evidence showing that
barracks improvements, as distinct from other factors, result in
improved readiness and retention; (9) even with existing barracks
conditions, the services have achieved their first-term retention goals
for the past 3 fiscal years with only one exception; (10) in FY 1998,
the Air Force missed its first-term retention goal by one percentage
point; (11) information collected from members that do not reenlist has
shown that many factors other than housing, such as pay and promotion
opportunities, are usually cited as the reasons for leaving the
military; (12) GAO's comparison of barracks construction costs
associated with alternative design standards showed significant
differences in the amount of funds that would be required over and above
what has already been funded; (13) because of the isolation provided in
private rooms, the Marine Corps believes the 1 plus 1 standard does not
allow for the unit cohesion and team building needed to reinforce Marine
Corps values and develop a stronger bond among Junior Marines; and (14)
the other services believe that the 1 plus 1 standard does not include
these negative aspects because the standard applies only to permanent
party personnel, not to recruits or initial trainees.

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

 REPORTNUM:  NSIAD-99-52
     TITLE:  Military Housing: Status of the Services' Implementation of 
             the Current Barracks Design Standard
      DATE:  03/24/99
   SUBJECT:  Military housing
             Quality of life
             Military facility construction
             Military personnel
             Combat readiness
             Construction costs
IDENTIFIER:  DOD 1 Plus 1 Barracks 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 Honorable
Pat Roberts, U.S.  Senate

March 1999

MILITARY HOUSING - STATUS OF THE
SERVICES' IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
CURRENT BARRACKS DESIGN STANDARD

GAO/NSIAD-99-52

Military Housing

(703252)


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

  DOD - Department of Defense

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


B-281734

March 24, 1999

The Honorable Pat Roberts
United States Senate

Dear Senator Roberts: 

The Department of Defense (DOD) expects most single junior enlisted
servicemembers to live on base in furnished living quarters commonly
referred to as barracks.  In November 1995, DOD adopted a new
barracks construction standard, referred to as the 1+1 design
standard, that called for more space and increased privacy in new
barracks for servicemembers permanently assigned to an installation. 
The new standard, which does not apply to barracks for members in
basic recruit or initial skill training, provides each junior
enlisted member with a private sleeping room and a kitchenette and
bath shared by one other member.  Under certain circumstances,\1 the
service secretaries may approve waivers from the 1+1 standard to
allow the use of alternative barracks designs.  Appendix I shows
typical floor plan diagrams for the 1+1 and two alternative barracks
designs.  Originally, the services estimated that about $10 billion
would be spent implementing the new standard over a 20-year period. 

Because of the importance of the military's barracks program and the
significant costs involved in upgrading barracks to meet the new
standard, you requested that we review DOD's barracks program in the
United States.  Specifically, we determined (1) the status of the
services' implementation of the 1+1 barracks design standard; (2)
DOD's rationale for adopting the standard; (3) the costs of
alternatives to the 1+1 standard; and (4) service views of the impact
of the standard from a team-building, individual isolation, or
similar perspective. 


--------------------
\1 DOD policy allows the standard to be waived if (1) unique mission
requirements or operational commitments are better served by
congregate living or (2) the collective quality of life for members
would be more enhanced by constructing to a lesser standard but
providing new quarters to a larger number of members. 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

Except for the Marine Corps, the services embraced the 1+1 barracks
design standard and in fiscal year 1996 began building new and
renovating older barracks to conform to the new standard.  In fiscal
years 1996-99, about $1.5 billion in funding was approved for 124
military construction projects designed to provide over 29,000
barracks spaces meeting the 1+1 design standard.  Also, to provide
increased privacy in existing barracks over a phased time period, the
Army, the Navy, and the Air Force plan to assign one member to
existing rooms designed for two members and two members to existing
rooms designed for three members.  When required, the barracks
capacity lost through this practice will be regained through
construction of new 1+1 barracks.  In lieu of the 1+1 design, the
Marine Corps is building new barracks with two-person sleeping rooms
for junior Marines. 

DOD justified the adoption of the 1+1 standard primarily as an
investment in quality of life aimed at improving military readiness
and retention.  Although barracks improvements do enhance
individuals' quality of life, to what degree is unknown because
quality of life is inherently difficult to quantify.  DOD has not
developed any direct, quantitative evidence showing that barracks
improvements, as distinct from other factors, result in improved
readiness and retention.  Even with existing barracks conditions, the
services have achieved their first-term retention goals for the past
3 fiscal years with only one exception.  In fiscal year 1998, the Air
Force missed its first-term retention goal by 1 percentage point. 
Information collected from members that do not reenlist has shown
that many factors other than housing, such as pay and promotion
opportunities, are usually cited as the reasons for leaving the
military. 

Our comparison of barracks construction costs associated with
alternative design standards showed significant differences in the
amount of funds that would be required over and above what has
already been funded.  For example, fully implementing the 1+1
standard (2 bedrooms, 1 bath, kitchenette, 2 persons) in all
services, including the Marine Corps, would cost an additional $13.7
billion.  Fully implementing the Marine Corps' 2+0 standard (1
bedroom, 1 bath, 2 persons) in all services would cost an additional
$3.1 billion.  Finally, fully implementing the barracks standard used
prior to November 1995, the 2+2 standard (2 bedrooms, 1 bath, 4
persons), would cost an additional $1.7 billion.  DOD officials
believe that only the 1+1 standard meets their concerns for improving
quality of life and that changing standards at this point would
result in inequities in the barracks inventory and could be perceived
by members as a promise not kept. 

Only the Marine Corps voiced concerns over the 1+1 design standard. 
Because of the isolation provided in private rooms, the Marine Corps
believes the 1+1 standard does not allow for the unit cohesion and
team building needed to reinforce Marine Corps values and develop a
stronger bond among junior Marines.  For this reason, the Marine
Corps obtained a permanent waiver from the Secretary of the Navy to
use a different barracks design standard--one sleeping room and bath
shared by two junior Marines.  The other services believe that the
1+1 standard does not include these negative aspects because the
standard applies only to permanent party personnel, not to recruits
or initial trainees; members of the same unit normally are assigned
to the same barracks or area so that unit integrity is maintained;
and barracks occupants continue to have adequate interaction with
other occupants. 


   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

About 374,000 single, active-duty enlisted servicemembers are housed
in the United States.  Of this number, about 212,000 are permanently
assigned to installations and live in barracks, about 96,000 receive
a housing allowance and live off base in civilian communities near
military installations, about 36,000 live on Navy ships, and about
30,000 live in barracks while in recruit or other short-term
training.  Most permanently assigned junior members living in
barracks share a sleeping room and bath with one or two others.  In
many older barracks, everyone living on a hall or floor shares a
communal bathroom, or central latrine. 

The Secretary of Defense is required to establish uniform barracks
construction standards that define size limitations for newly
constructed permanent barracks.\2 Over the years, barracks
construction standards have changed to provide for increased space
and privacy.  Prior to the 1970s, most permanent party barracks
consisted of large, open-bay rooms with central latrines shared by
many members.  To meet the needs of the all-volunteer force, DOD
adopted a new barracks standard in 1972.  This standard provided a
270-square-foot room for three junior members that also shared a
bath.  Citing the need to provide more space for all pay grades, DOD
adopted a new construction standard in 1983.  This standard, known as
the 2+2 design, consisted of a module with two, 180-net-square-foot
sleeping rooms and a shared bath.  With this design, two junior
enlisted members normally would occupy each sleeping room, and four
members would share a bath. 

The current 1+1 design standard provides a barracks module consisting
of two private sleeping rooms, each with 118 net square feet, a bath,
and a kitchenette.  Two junior enlisted members in pay grades E-1
through E-4 are assigned to each module with each member having a
private sleeping room.  Normally, enlisted members in pay grades E-5
and above are assigned the entire module, using one sleeping room as
a living room.\3

Citing concerns over unit cohesion and team building, the Marine
Corps obtained a permanent waiver from the Secretary of the Navy from
using the 1+1 design standard in its new barracks construction.  The
Marine Corps prefers to use a barracks standard known as the 2+0
design, which provides a 180-net-square-foot room with a bath. 
Normally, either two junior Marines in pay grades E-1 through E-3 or
one Marine in pay grade E-4 or E-5 are assigned to each room. 

Because the design standards apply to the construction of new
barracks, adequacy of the existing barracks for housing members may
not necessarily change.  DOD separately establishes minimum standards
of acceptable space and privacy for members assigned to existing
barracks.  For example, the current minimum assignment standard for
permanent party personnel in pay grades E-1 through E-4 is 90 square
feet of net living area per person, not more than four persons to a
room, and a central latrine.  When this assignment standard cannot be
met or when space is not available, installation commanders can
authorize single members to live off base and receive a housing
allowance.  Regardless of the availability of adequate barracks
space, senior personnel in pay grades E-7 through E-9 may elect to
live off base and receive a housing allowance. 


--------------------
\2 This requirement is contained in 10 U.S.C.  2856. 

\3 The Air Force does not program barracks space for members in pay
grades E-5 and above.  If space is available, these members may be
assigned to the barracks under the assignment standards applicable to
members in pay grades E-1 through E-4. 


   STATUS OF THE 1+1 BARRACKS
   PROGRAM
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

With the exception of the Marine Corps, the services have embraced
the 1+1 design standard and began building new and renovating older
barracks in accordance with the standard in fiscal year 1996.  As
shown in table 1, through fiscal year 1999, about $1.5 billion in
funding was approved for 124 barracks projects designed to provide
over 29,000 barracks spaces meeting the 1+1 design standard. 



                                Table 1
                
                 1+1 Barracks Projects Approved Through
                            Fiscal Year 1999

                         (Dollars in millions)

                                 Number of     Number of
Service                           projects      spaces\a        Cost\a
----------------------------  ------------  ------------  ------------
Army                                    44        12,500          $680
Navy                                    25         7,100           336
Air Force                               51         6,900           425
Marine Corps                           4\b         2,700           106
======================================================================
Total                                  124        29,200        $1,547
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a For projects not yet under construction, the data reflects the
spaces and costs in the project justifications.  For projects under
construction or completed, the data reflects the services' estimates
of actual spaces and costs at the time of our review. 

\b Although the Marine Corps prefers the 2+0 design, base realignment
and closure decisions resulted in approval and direct funding of four
barracks projects for the Marines that used the DOD 1+1 design
standard. 

Except for the Marine Corps, each service has adopted a plan for
improving its barracks and implementing the 1+1 standard.  According
to service officials, the plans generally call for (1) eliminating
barracks with central latrines primarily through construction of new
1+1 barracks, (2) providing members with increased privacy and
approximating the 1+1 standard in existing barracks by assigning one
member to rooms originally designed for two members or two persons to
rooms originally designed for three persons,\4 (3) constructing new
1+1 barracks to meet existing barracks shortages and to regain
capacity lost when fewer members are assigned to existing rooms, and
(4) replacing existing barracks at the end of their economic life
with new 1+1 barracks.  The services, as discussed below, estimated
that an additional $7.4 billion would be required to implement their
plans and approximate the 1+1 standard.  The Marine Corps' plan is
similar to the other services' plans except that it calls for
implementation of the 2+0 barracks design standard in lieu of the 1+1
design. 

In its plan, the Army estimated that about $3 billion would be
required through fiscal year 2008 to approximate the 1+1 standard for
about 84,000 servicemembers in the United States in pay grades E-1
through E-6.  When the Army meets this goal, about 38 percent of the
Army's barracks spaces will meet all requirements of the 1+1
standard.  The balance of the spaces will consist of existing (1)
private sleeping rooms that do not meet all requirements of the 1+1
standard and (2) multiperson rooms that have been downloaded.  The
Army's barracks strategy also provides for improving the entire
barracks community.  As such, many Army barracks construction
projects include construction of new company operations buildings,
battalion and brigade headquarters buildings, soldier community
buildings, and dining facilities.  The Army is also developing a
barracks master plan that will include an
installation-by-installation assessment of barracks conditions and
detailed plans for replacement or renovation to meet requirements of
the 1+1 design standard.  The master plan is to be completed by
September 1999.  The Army has approved no waivers to the 1+1 standard
for barracks projects in the United States. 

In 1997, the Air Force completed a comprehensive barracks master plan
that defines the Air Force's long-range barracks investment strategy
and lays out a road map for implementing the 1+1 standard.  The Air
Force's strategy calls for providing private sleeping rooms for
permanent party servicemembers in pay grades E-1 through E-4 by
downloading existing 2+2 rooms and constructing new 1+1 rooms to
regain the lost capacity.  The strategy also calls for paying housing
allowances for single members in pay grades E-5 and above to live off
base.  The Air Force estimated that about $750 million would be
required through fiscal year 2009 to approximate the 1+1 standard for
about 48,000 members in the United States in pay grades E-1 through
E-4.  The Air Force has approved no waivers to the 1+1 standard for
barracks projects in the United States. 

The Navy estimated that about $2.9 billion would be required through
fiscal year 2013 to approximate the 1+1 design standard worldwide. 
The Navy's strategy calls for (1) providing barracks space for about
36,000 permanent party, shore-based single servicemembers in pay
grades E-1 through E-4 in the United States; (2) paying housing
allowances to most members in pay grades E-5 and above to live off
base; and (3) continuing to house about 36,000 single members in pay
grades E-1 through E-4 assigned to large ships, on the ships, rather
than in barracks, even when the ships are in their homeports.  The
Navy is developing a barracks master plan that will include an
installation-by-installation assessment of barracks conditions and
detailed plans for barracks replacement or renovation to meet
requirements of the 1+1 design standard.  The master plan is
scheduled to be completed by April 1999. 

The Navy has approved waivers from using the 1+1 design standard for
four projects in the United States, and one additional waiver request
was pending.\5 The waivers were granted because these installations
could improve barracks conditions more quickly and for more members
by building the projects using a lower and less costly standard.  In
addition, two of the projects were for barracks designed for Navy
personnel assigned to Marine Corps installations.  In these cases,
the waiver justifications also stated that the barracks should use
the Marine Corps 2+0 design standard to be compatible with other
barracks at the installations. 

In July 1998, the Secretary of the Navy approved the Marine Corps'
request for a permanent waiver to allow the use of the 2+0 barracks
design standard in lieu of the 1+1 design standard.  The waiver
request stated that Marine Corps junior members in pay grades E-1
through E-3 would live in two-person rooms and that private rooms
would be provided for members in pay grades E-4 and above.  Through
fiscal year 1999, about $205 million was approved for 16 Marine Corps
2+0 barracks projects that will provide about 5,900 barracks spaces. 
The Marine Corps' strategy calls for providing barracks space for
permanent party single servicemembers in pay grades E-1 through E-5
and paying housing allowances for most members in pay grades E-6 and
above to live off base.  The Marine Corps estimated that about $725
million would be required through fiscal
year 2022 to approximate the 2+0 standard worldwide.  A Marine Corps
official stated that a barracks master plan similar to the other
services plans is under development. 


--------------------
\4 This practice is referred to as downloading. 

\5 The majority of the waivers included the expectation that the 1+1
standard would still be achieved by fiscal year 2013. 


   DOD'S JUSTIFICATION FOR
   ADOPTING THE 1+1 STANDARD
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

DOD primarily justified the adoption of the 1+1 barracks design
standard in 1995 as an investment in quality of life aimed at
improving readiness, retention, and motivation of a professional,
all-volunteer armed force.  In a December 1995 report to the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations,\6 DOD stated that "savings
in recruiting, training, and productivity will offset the
quality-of-life investment.  To what degree is impossible to say, but
focusing only on the barracks cost would risk missing those savings."
DOD further stated that the new standard addressed the results of a
1992 triservice survey of barracks occupants at 12 installations. 
The survey showed that servicemembers were dissatisfied with the
privacy and living space offered with the previous design standard
and wanted larger rooms, private rooms, private baths, and more
storage space.\7

Hence, DOD concluded that continuing to build more of the same type
of barracks would have been unwise. 

According to DOD officials, adoption of the 1+1 standard also
reflected an attempt to treat single servicemembers in a more
equitable manner compared to married servicemembers who normally live
in multiroom houses.  More equitable treatment of single members in
housing was a matter of concern expressed by the House Armed Services
Committee in 1993.\8 To illustrate, married members in pay grades E-1
through E-4 living on base normally are assigned to a house with at
least 950 square feet, two bedrooms, a full kitchen, a family room,
and one or one and a half baths.  If available, housing with a
separate bedroom for each dependent child is provided.  In
comparison, single members in pay grades E-1 through E-4 living on
base in barracks designed under the standard in place prior to 1995
would live in a 180-square-foot room shared with another member and
would share a bath with three other members. 

We agree with DOD that the 1+1 design standard reduces the
differences in housing for married and single members.  We also agree
that improved barracks enhance individual quality of life.  However,
to what extent is unknown because quality of life is inherently
difficult to quantify.  Quality of life is a complex issue reflected
in a delicate mix of variables such as balancing personal life and
the demands of military service, adequate pay and benefits, and many
other factors.  DOD officials stated that no quantitative measures
directly link a single quality-of-life element, such as barracks
quality, with readiness or retention.  Without such data, there is
little evidence to support DOD's assumption that improved barracks
will result in improved readiness and higher enlisted retention
rates. 

Even with existing barracks conditions, the services have met most
retention goals over the past 3 fiscal years.  In particular,
according to service officials, the large majority of barracks
occupants are serving in their first term of enlistment, and except
in one instance, the services have achieved their first-term
retention goals for fiscal years 1996-98.  In the one instance, the
Air Force missed its first-term retention goal by 1 percentage point
in fiscal year 1998.  Further, information collected from members
that do not reenlist has shown that factors other than housing, such
as pay and promotion opportunities, are usually cited as the reasons
members leave the military. 

We also noted that the 1992 triservice barracks survey, cited as part
of the justification for the 1+1 standard, was somewhat limited in
scope.  The survey began in October 1991 when the Air Force collected
information from four installations and was expanded in March and
April 1992 to include three Army, three Navy, and two Marine Corps
installations.  Although the survey showed that about 2,200 Army,
Navy, and Marine Corps barracks occupants participated in the
voluntary survey, documentation was not clear on how many Air Force
members participated or how the survey participants were selected. 
The survey included 96 questions, and participants were asked to
respond to many questions on a scale of "very satisfied" to "very
dissatisfied" or "very important" to "not at all important."

The survey also included some interesting results that DOD has not
usually cited.  For example, 84 percent of the participants reported
that they preferred to receive a housing allowance and live off base
rather than live in the barracks.  The preference to live off base
could continue regardless of the type or quality of barracks provided
and thereby result in members' continued dissatisfaction with the
barracks.  Also, when participants were asked, how satisfied or
dissatisfied they were with their barracks or dormitory room, 53
percent responded that they were dissatisfied (34 percent) or very
dissatisfied (19 percent).  At the same time, only 46 percent
responded to a similar question that they were dissatisfied or very
dissatisfied with living on the installation.  Although these numbers
show that about half of the respondents were dissatisfied with the
barracks, the other half reported that they were not dissatisfied
with their housing.  Finally, when asked, what one improvement in the
barracks or dormitory would most increase retention of enlisted
personnel, the most mentioned improvement, cited by 35 percent of the
respondents, was fewer rules and restrictions for barracks occupants
and freedom from command inspections.  A private room was the second
most mentioned improvement, cited by 24 percent of the respondents. 


--------------------
\6 Troop Housing:  Establishment of Standard for Construction of New,
Permanent Party Barracks, Office of the Secretary of Defense,
December 1995. 

\7 A May 1995 Air Force quality-of-life survey also reported that 88
percent of the single, enlisted respondents stated that the factor
that would most improve their quality of life was a private room. 

\8 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993, House
Armed Services Committee Report 102-527. 


   COSTS OF ALTERNATIVE BARRACKS
   DESIGNS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

We compared the costs of constructing barracks using the 1+1 design
standard to the costs of constructing barracks using other design
standards, specifically the 2+0 design used by the Marine Corps and
the 2+2 design that was the previous barracks design standard.  The
comparison showed significant cost differences among the designs. 
For example, the estimated cost to construct a single barracks space
using the 1+1 design standard for a member in pay grades E-1 through
E-4 was about $63,000.  The comparable construction costs using the
2+0 design standard was about $41,000.  Using the 2+2 design
standard, the comparable cost was about $38,000 for each barracks
space.  The designs have different costs primarily because of
differences in each design's maximum building area per occupant.  For
example, the maximum gross building area for each junior member
occupant is 355, 229, and 213 square feet for the 1+1, 2+0, and 2+2
designs, respectively. 

Table 2 shows the cost per occupant for each of the designs.  Costs
are higher for members in pay grades E-5 and above because barracks
assignment policies normally provide these members with double the
space provided to junior members. 



                                Table 2
                
                Barracks Construction Cost Estimates for
                             Each Occupant

Pay grades\a                    1+1 design    2+0 design    2+2 design
----------------------------  ------------  ------------  ------------
E-1 -E-4                           $63,000       $41,000       $38,000
E-5 and above                     $126,000       $82,000       $76,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  The estimates reflect fiscal year 2000 costs for
institutional-style construction and include adjustments for
geographic area cost differences; support costs; contingencies; and
supervision, inspections, and overhead. 

\a For the Marine Corps, the paygrade categories are E-1 through E-3
and E-4 and above. 

We also estimated the total additional cost for the services to fully
implement each of the three design standards.  Specifically, using
the cost estimates for each design and the services' estimates of
barracks requirements and configuration after the completion of
projects funded through fiscal year 1999, we estimated the additional
funds required to provide all planned barracks occupants with spaces
that comply with each of the standards.  Table 3 summarizes our
estimates. 



                                Table 3
                
                 Estimated Additional Funds Required to
                  Fully Implement Alternative Barracks
                            Design Standards

                         (Dollars in millions)

                                  1+1 full      2+0 full      2+2 full
                              implementati  implementati  implementati
Service                                 on            on            on
----------------------------  ------------  ------------  ------------
Army                                $4,927          $878          $490
Air Force                            2,626           290             0
Navy                                 2,130           702           474
Marine Corps                         4,024         1,245           710
======================================================================
Total                              $13,707        $3,115        $1,674
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  Our cost estimates to fully implement the 1+1 standard differ
from the services' estimates noted earlier because their estimates
reflected an approximate 1+1 standard.  With an approximate 1+1
standard, many servicemembers occupy downloaded rooms that do not
meet all 1+1 requirements. 

We included the Marine Corps in our calculations, even though its
current plan is to implement the 2+0 standard in lieu of the 1+1
standard.  The total additional cost to fully implement the 1+1
standard in the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force and the 2+0
standard in the Marine Corps, as currently planned, is about $10.9
billion.  In comparison, if all services used the 2+0 design
standard, they would need about $3.1 billion to fully implement the
standard--or about $7.8 billion less than the current plan; and if
all services used the 2+2 standard, they would need about $1.7
billion to fully implement the standard--or about $9.2 billion less
than the current plan. 

Although DOD officials agreed that costs associated with the 1+1
design are significantly higher, they stated that the less costly
designs do not relieve their concerns for improving quality of life. 
Army, Navy, and Air Force officials stated that the reasons for
initially adopting the 1+1 design--to improve quality of life and
provide more equity in housing for single and married
members--continue to be valid.  In addition, they noted that a
considerable investment, about $1.5 billion, has already been made in
implementing the 1+1 standard and that changing the standard would
result in inequities in the barracks inventory.  Further, the
officials expressed concern that abandoning the 1+1 design and its
improvements could be perceived by members as a promise not kept and
consequently have an adverse impact on morale. 


   SERVICE VIEWS OF THE 1+1 DESIGN
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

Marine Corps officials stated that the higher cost of the 1+1 design
was a concern to them.  For 2 years, the Marine Corps obtained a
waiver allowing use of the 2+0 design on the basis that they could
improve barracks conditions faster by using the less costly design. 
The Marine Corps also sees an additional drawback to the 1+1
standard.  Specifically, because of the increased isolation provided
in private sleeping rooms, the Marine Corps believes that the 1+1
standard does not allow for the unit cohesion and team building
needed to reinforce Corps values and develop a stronger bond among
junior Marines.  It was for this reason that the Marine Corps
obtained a permanent waiver from using the 1+1 design for Marines in
pay grades E-1 through E-3. 

Army, Navy, and Air Force officials stated that they do not see any
negative aspects to the 1+1 standard from an individual isolation or
team-building perspective.  They stated that the standard is used
only for permanent party personnel, not for recruits or initial
trainees; whenever possible, members of the same unit are assigned to
the same barracks or area so that unit integrity is maintained; and
barracks occupants continue to have adequate interaction with other
occupants.  These officials also noted that the Marine Corps'
first-term retention goals are significantly lower than the goals of
the other services.  As a result, they believed that the potential
benefits from improved quality of life provided by private sleeping
rooms outweighed any potential drawbacks from increased isolation in
private rooms. 


   CONCLUSIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7

Although the 1+1 barracks standard improves the quality of life for
single servicemembers and to some degree addresses housing
differences between single and married members, DOD has no
quantifiable evidence that barracks improvements result in improved
readiness and retention.  Implementing the 2+0 or 2+2 design standard
in lieu of the 1+1 standard would be significantly less costly to the
military; however, the less costly designs do not alleviate DOD's
concerns about improving servicemembers' quality of life.  Whether
the 1+1 standard has drawbacks from an individual isolation or
team-building standpoint appears to be a matter of military judgment
that varies depending on each service's culture, mission, and goals. 
Ultimately, the barracks design standard decision is a qualitative
policy decision. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS AND OUR
   EVALUATION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :8

In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD affirmed its
commitment to providing quality housing for single members stating
that improved quality of life is a critical component to attracting
and retaining high quality personnel.  While recognizing our
assessment that measuring the impact of improved barracks on
individual quality of life, retention, and readiness is inherently
difficult, DOD maintained that providing more privacy and amenities
in the barracks is important in order to address concerns raised by
single servicemembers.  DOD stated it has no precise measures linking
barracks improvements to retention and readiness because (1) few 1+1
barracks have been completed, which limits the availability of data
for analysis, and (2) the quality of home life is just one of many
factors affecting individuals' quality of life, and individuals'
quality of life is just one of many factors affecting readiness. 

DOD commented that in discussing the reasons that DOD adopted the 1+1
standard, we should have mentioned a May 1995 Air Force
quality-of-life survey.  This survey reported that barracks occupants
cited privacy as their number one concern.  We have added to our
report a reference to the Air Force survey.  We had considered this
survey during our review but did not originally mention it because
(1) its key barracks-related finding of privacy was the same as the
key finding from the 1992 triservice survey, which we do discuss, and
(2) DOD officials more frequently cited the 1992 triservice survey
results as documentation of servicemembers' dissatisfaction with
their barracks. 

DOD commented that although the 1992 triservice survey found that the
majority of the survey participants preferred to live off base, on
base housing is needed to maintain good order and discipline.  Our
point, as stated in the report, is that the preference to live off
base may continue regardless of the type or quality of barracks that
are provided.  Unfortunately, reliable, quantitative data is not
available to show what impact improved barracks will have on members'
perceptions of their quality of life and ultimately on members'
decisions to stay in the military. 

DOD questioned our analysis of costs that would be incurred if the
Marine Corps' 2+0 barracks standard were adopted by all services. 
DOD stated that we failed to consider the costs of additional baths
that would be required if existing 2+2 barracks were converted to 2+0
use.  DOD's contentions are not accurate.  In our analysis, we
assumed that existing 2+2 barracks would be downloaded by assigning
only one member to each of the two bedrooms that share a bath.  With
this configuration, more net square footage would be provided to each
member than required under the 2+0 standard and no additional baths
would be required. 

DOD commented that some of our cost estimates were misleading because
we did not consider the cost of modernizing and renovating existing
barracks if a barracks standard other than the 1+1 standard were
adopted.  We disagree.  Regardless of which barracks design standard
is used, barracks wear out and eventually require repair,
modernization, and renovation.  For this reason, our analysis
considered only costs to fully implement the three barracks design
standards. 

Finally, DOD commented that our analysis of costs for full
implementation of the 1+1 barracks design is not based on any DOD or
service plan.  As such, DOD stated that our analysis failed to
consider that the services plan to replace existing barracks only
after they reach the end of their useful life.  In describing the
services' plans, our report notes that new barracks will be
constructed, when required, to replace barracks at the end of their
economic life.  We did not intend to suggest that existing barracks
should be abandoned and new 1+1 barracks should be immediately
constructed.  Rather, our analysis is intended to estimate the costs
for the Army, the Air Force, and the Navy to fully implement the 1+1
standard over time, which represents the current plans of these
services. 

DOD also provided some technical comments, which we have incorporated
as appropriate. 


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :8.1

We are sending copies of this report to Senator Robert C.  Byrd,
Senator Carl Levin, Senator Ted Stevens, Senator John W.  Warner, and
to Representative David R.  Obey, Representative Ike Skelton,
Representative Floyd D.  Spence, and Representative C.W.  Bill Young,
in their capacities as Chair or Ranking Minority Member of Senate and
House Committees.  We are also sending copies of this report to the
Honorable William Cohen, Secretary of Defense; the Honorable Louis
Caldera, Secretary of the Army; the Honorable Richard Danzig,
Secretary of the Navy; the Commandant of the Marine Corps, General
Charles C.  Krulak; and the Honorable F.W.  Peters, Acting Secretary
of the Air Force.  Copies will also be made available to others upon
request. 

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

Sincerely yours,

Mark E.  Gebicke
Director, Military Operations
 and Capabilities Issues


TYPICAL ROOM FLOOR PLANS FOR
BARRACKS DESIGNS
=========================================================== Appendix I



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
========================================================== Appendix II

As requested, we reviewed the Department of Defense's (DOD) barracks
program in the United States to (1) determine the status of the
services' implementation of the 1+1 barracks design standard; (2)
document DOD's rationale for adopting the standard; (3) determine the
costs of alternatives to the 1+1 standard; and (4) obtain service
views of the impact of the standard from a team-building, individual
isolation, or similar perspective.  Our review focused on military
barracks used to house permanent party enlisted personnel in the
United States. 

We performed our work at the Office of the Secretary of Defense and
the headquarters of each military service.  We interviewed
responsible agency personnel and reviewed applicable policies,
procedures, and documents.  We also visited one installation of each
service to observe barracks designs and conditions and to talk with
barracks managers and occupants.  We visited the following
installations, as recommended by the respective service headquarters: 
Fort Lewis, Washington; Cheatham Annex Fleet Industrial Supply
Center, Virginia; Edwards Air Force Base, California; and Marine
Corps Air Station, Beaufort, South Carolina. 

To determine the status of each service's barracks program, we
obtained and reviewed information on barracks policies, requirements,
inventory, and condition of the inventory.  We also reviewed each
service's plans and cost estimates for improving the barracks,
including plans for implementing the 1+1 design standard.  We
reviewed the status of military construction barracks projects for
fiscal years 1996-99, and for all 1+1 projects, we summarized the
costs incurred and number of barracks spaces provided. 

To document DOD's rationale for adopting the 1+1 barracks design
standard, we reviewed (1) changes to barracks design standards since
1970, (2) DOD and service documentation describing the process that
resulted in adoption of the 1+1 design standard, (3) previous DOD
reports discussing the rationale for the 1+1 design, and (4) the
results from the 1992 triservice survey of barracks occupants.  We
also obtained and reviewed available information on servicemembers'
quality of life and reviewed retention statistics since fiscal year
1996. 

To determine the costs of alternatives to the 1+1 standard, we
analyzed the services' cost information on constructing military
barracks using the 1+1, 2+0, and 2+2 design standards.  We used this
information to develop estimates of the cost to construct a barracks
space in accordance with each of these standards.  Using these cost
estimates, data on the existing barracks inventory and approved
barracks construction projects, and service estimates of barracks
requirements, we also estimated and compared the costs for each
service to fully implement each of the three design standards.  In
addition, we obtained the views of service representatives on the use
of barracks designs other than the 1+1 design. 

To obtain service views of the impact of the standard from an
individual isolation, team-building, or similar perspective, we (1)
reviewed documentation describing the process resulting in adoption
of the 1+1 standard to determine whether any negative aspects of the
design had been identified and evaluated, (2) reviewed the
justifications supporting all service requests for waivers from using
the 1+1 design standard, and (3) obtained opinions on the matter from
service representatives. 

We conducted our review between July 1998 and January 1999 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 




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



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)


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

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

Carol Schuster, Associate Director
William Solis, Assistant Director

NORFOLK FIELD OFFICE

Gary Phillips, Evaluator in Charge
James Ellis, Senior Evaluator


*** End of document. ***