Military Housing: Costs of Separate Barracks for Male and Female Recruits
in Basic Training (Letter Report, 03/01/99, GAO/NSIAD-99-75).

Pursuant to a legislative requirement, GAO determined each military
service's costs if required to provide housing for male and female
recruits during basic training in separate structures. GAO also: (1)
obtained the services' views on housing male and female recruits in
separate barracks; and (2) reviewed the services' compliance with the
act's requirement to provide separate and secure areas for male and
female recruits if they are housed in the same barracks.

GAO noted that: (1) the services would not incur additional construction
costs if they housed male and female recruits in separate barracks; (2)
analysis showed that on the basis of the peak number of male and female
recruits at each basic training installation during fiscal year 1998,
the barracks capacity at each installation was sufficient to house male
and female recruits in separate barracks; (3) the Army had previously
estimated that $271 million would be needed for barracks construction if
male and female recruits were housed in separate barracks; (4) the Army
based this estimate on the assumption that, to maintain unit integrity,
it would house only one training unit in a barracks; (5) the Army
assumed that barracks areas vacated when females moved out would not be
reassigned to males from other training units and that new barracks
would be constructed for the females; (6) GAO believes that effective
leadership and management oversight could overcome problems in sharing
of barracks space and that the added costs of constructing separate
buildings could thereby be avoided; (7) the Army already assigns more
than one training unit to its newer 1,200-person recruit barracks
providing each unit with a separate area of the barracks; (8) GAO's
analysis assumed that recruit barracks could be shared by more than one
training unit and that each unit could be provided a separate floor or
area for housing its members; (9) Army, Navy, and Air Force officials
opposed housing male and female recruits in separate barracks; (10) they
also said that current recruit housing practices already provide
separate and secure housing and additional security would be achieved if
males and females were housed in separate buildings; (11) they further
said that placing males and females in separate barracks would: (a)
increase requirements for enlisted female supervisors to manage
barracks, thereby exacerbating an existing shortage of females in this
skill area; and (b) add training costs because of the time lost
traveling between barracks whenever males and females attended the same
training event; (12) according to service officials, recruit barracks at
gender-integrated basic training installations comply with the recruit
housing requirements of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1999; and (13) male and female recruits are assigned to
separate and secure sleeping and latrine areas on different floors or in
discrete sections of barracks.

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

 REPORTNUM:  NSIAD-99-75
     TITLE:  Military Housing: Costs of Separate Barracks for Male and 
             Female Recruits in Basic Training
      DATE:  03/01/99
   SUBJECT:  Military housing
             Enlisted personnel
             Facility construction
             Construction costs
             Military training
             Cost analysis

             
******************************************************************
** 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 Congressional Committees

March 1999

MILITARY HOUSING - COSTS OF
SEPARATE BARRACKS FOR MALE AND
FEMALE RECRUITS IN BASIC TRAINING

GAO/NSIAD-99-75

Military Housing

(703270)


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

  DOD - Department of Defense

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


B-282081

March 1, 1999

The Honorable John Warner
Chairman
The Honorable Carl Levin
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Armed Services
United States Senate

The Honorable Floyd D.  Spence
Chairman
The Honorable Ike Skelton
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Armed Services
House of Representatives

In response to a mandate in the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1999, we determined each military service's costs if
required to provide housing for male and female recruits during basic
training in separate structures.\1 We also (1) obtained the services'
views on housing male and female recruits in separate barracks and
(2) reviewed the services' compliance with the act's requirement to
provide separate and secure areas for male and female recruits if
they are housed in the same barracks. 


--------------------
\1 P.L.  105-261 section 521(d), October 17, 1998. 


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

In June 1998, the Secretary of Defense approved plans of the military
services to improve initial entry training programs and policies. 
The plans included measures to provide for the safety, security,
privacy and appropriate supervision of recruits in barracks, a goal
that responds to recommendations made by the Federal Advisory
Committee on Gender-Integrated Training and Related Issues (also
known as the Kassebaum-Baker panel).  With these measures in place,
the Army, Navy, and Air Force planned to continue housing male and
female recruits on separate floors or in separate areas of the same
barracks.  The Marine Corps planned to continue housing male and
female recruits in separate barracks. 

Housing for male and female recruits has also been a concern of the
Congress.  The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1999 required the services to provide separate and secure housing for
male and female recruits with separate entrances and with sleeping
and latrine areas separated by permanent walls.\2 According to the
act, if an installation cannot meet this requirement by October 1,
2001, it must house males and females in separate facilities. 

The services conduct gender-integrated basic training at Forts
Leonard Wood, Jackson, and McClellan;\3 Great Lakes Naval Training
Command; and Lackland Air Force Base.  The Marine Corps conducts
gender-segregated basic training at Marine Corps Recruit Depot,
Parris Island.  The Army plans to move Fort McClellan's
gender-integrated basic training to Fort Leonard Wood in fiscal year
1999 and begin gender-integrated basic training at Fort Sill in May
1999. 


--------------------
\2 P.L.  105-261 section 521(a), (b), and (c), October 17, 1998. 

\3 For the purposes of this report, we have included in basic
training the Army's One Station Unit Training.  This training
combines basic training and advanced individual training into one
continuous course. 


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

We determined that the services would not incur additional
construction costs if they housed male and female recruits in
separate barracks.  Our analysis showed that on the basis of the peak
number of male and female recruits at each basic training
installation during fiscal year 1998, the barracks capacity at each
installation was sufficient to house male and female recruits in
separate barracks.  To meet personnel requirements over the next 5
years, the Army and the Navy forecast an increase in the annual
number of recruits in basic training.  If the two services' forecast
is accurate, some new barracks would need to be constructed to meet
recruit housing requirements.  However, our analysis showed that the
amount of new construction and the associated costs would be the same
whether male and female recruits are housed in the same or in
separate barracks. 

The Army had previously estimated that $271 million would be needed
for barracks construction if male and female recruits were housed in
separate barracks.  The Army based this estimate on the assumption
that, to maintain unit integrity, it would house only one training
unit in a barracks.  Thus, the Army assumed that barracks areas
vacated when females moved out would not be reassigned to males from
other training units and that new barracks would be constructed for
the females.  We believe that effective leadership and management
oversight could overcome problems in sharing of barracks space and
that the added costs of constructing separate buildings could thereby
be avoided.  The Army already assigns more than one training unit to
its newer 1,200-person recruit barracks providing each unit with a
separate area of the barracks.  Our analysis assumed that recruit
barracks could be shared by more than one training unit and that each
unit could be provided a separate floor or area for housing its
members. 

Army, Navy, and Air Force officials opposed housing male and female
recruits in separate barracks.  According to these officials,
gender-integrated training is important in order to train recruits in
a fashion mirroring the way they will operate and fight in their
operational units, and this training can be conducted most
effectively and efficiently when male and female recruits are
assigned to separate areas of the same barracks.  They also said that
current recruit housing practices already provide separate and secure
housing and that little, if any, additional security would be
achieved if males and females were housed in separate buildings. 
They further said that placing males and females in separate barracks
would (1) increase requirements for enlisted female supervisors to
manage the barracks, thereby exacerbating an existing shortage of
females in this skill area and (2) add training costs because of the
time lost traveling between barracks whenever males and females
attended the same training event. 

According to service officials, recruit barracks at gender-integrated
basic training installations, except for some at Fort Jackson, comply
with the recruit housing requirements of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999.  Male and female recruits are
assigned to separate and secure sleeping and latrine areas on
different floors or in discrete sections of the barracks.  Separate
entrances are provided to the male and female housing areas, and a
security watch normally controls access to the areas.  To bring Fort
Jackson's barracks into full compliance, the Army plans to replace
temporary walls in older barracks with permanent walls and install
alarmed, metal doors.  These modifications are estimated to cost
about $314,000 and are scheduled to be completed by March 30, 1999. 
During our January 1999 visits to the installations that conduct
gender-integrated basic training, we toured several barracks.  These
barracks provided separate and secure sleeping and latrine areas for
males and females. 

Appendixes I through IV contain details of our analysis of each
service's costs if required to provide housing for male and female
recruits in separate barracks.  Appendix V provides a summary of our
analysis.  Appendix VI contains our objectives, scope, and
methodology. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS AND OUR
   EVALUATION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

In oral comments on a draft of this report, the Department of Defense
(DOD) did not agree with the results of our analysis showing that no
additional barracks construction costs would be incurred if male and
female recruits lived in separate barracks.  DOD endorsed the Army's
view that all soldiers assigned to a recruit training company should
be housed in the same barracks for unit cohesion and to instill
values and teamwork.  If males and females were required to live in
separate buildings, DOD stated that only one company should be housed
in a barracks to maintain unit integrity.  To accomplish this, DOD
stated that additional barracks costing $271 million would be needed
at Army gender-integrated basic training installations. 

We agree that unit integrity is an important element of the Army's
training doctrine.  However, limiting a barracks to a single training
unit would leave large areas of some buildings unoccupied if female
recruits were moved to separate buildings.  Spending $271 million to
build additional barracks, yet leaving entire barracks floors vacant
would, in our opinion, be wasteful.  Using the Army's own argument,
the principal of unit integrity would already be broken by housing
female members of training units in separate buildings.  Housing
different training companies in separate areas or on separate floors
of a single barracks would not appear to erode unit integrity to any
additional extent yet would provide more efficient use of space and
minimize construction costs. 

DOD disagreed with our conclusion that no additional construction
funds would be required at the Navy's recruit training installation
if males and females were required to live in separate barracks.  DOD
reiterated the Navy's position that $32 million in added construction
would be needed to provide new barracks of similar design to existing
barracks and to provide some extra capacity needed for assignment
flexibility.  While maintaining similar construction designs and
permitting flexibility would be desirable, we believe it would be
wasteful to spend additional funds on facilities that, in fact, are
not required, simply for the purposes of conformity and flexibility. 

DOD also stated that while our analysis of Air Force barracks spaces
is technically correct, it assumed that all barracks would be used
for housing recruits.  As such, DOD stated that the analysis did not
consider that the Air Force plans to keep one barracks closed at any
given time to provide for renovations.  If all barracks were used for
housing, the planned renovations would have to be terminated and
there would also be some increase in costs to operate and maintain
the additional building.  We have modified our report to reflect this
comment.  However, the Air Force's recruit housing capacity numbers
7,000 and its peak recruit housing requirement numbers 5,684.  With
the extra housing capacity, we believe that, as an alternative to
halting planned renovations, the Air Force could perform the
renovation work in phases by closing sections of a barracks instead
of an entire barracks at a time. 

Notwithstanding its support for separate male and female barracks in
the Marine Corps, DOD stated it supported Army, Navy, and Air Force
views that male and female recruits should continue to be housed in
separate areas of the same barracks. 

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


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1

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

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

Mark E.  Gebicke
Director, Military Operations
 and Capabilities Issues


SEPARATE BARRACKS IN THE ARMY
=========================================================== Appendix I

The Army conducts gender-integrated basic training at Fort Leonard
Wood, Missouri; Fort Jackson, South Carolina; and Fort McClellan,
Alabama.\1 Because the Army is transferring Fort McClellan's
gender-integrated training to Fort Leonard Wood in fiscal year 1999,
we included Fort McClellan's trainee population as part of our
analysis of facilities at Fort Leonard Wood.  The Army also plans to
begin gender-integrated basic training at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, in May
1999. 


--------------------
\1 For the purposes of this report, we included in basic training the
Army's One Station Unit Training.  This training combines basic
training and advanced individual training into one continuous course. 


   SEPARATE BARRACKS AT FORT
   LEONARD WOOD
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1

Fort Leonard Wood has 30 similar, three-story barracks.  With a
maximum capacity of 290 recruits in each building, Fort Leonard
Wood's total recruit housing capacity is 8,700 trainees.\2 Females
are assigned to the first floor and males normally are assigned to
the second and third floors. 

During fiscal year 1998, the peak recruit population at Fort Leonard
Wood numbered 5,267, including 3,922 males and 1,345 females.  If
Fort McClellan's fiscal year 1998 training load had also been
conducted at Fort Leonard Wood, the peak recruit population would
have increased to 7,601, consisting of 5,674 males and 1,927 females. 
On the basis of this peak population and the capacity of the existing
barracks inventory, our analysis showed that Fort Leonard Wood could
provide housing for males and females in separate buildings with no
additional barracks construction costs.  Assigning male and female
recruits to separate barracks would no longer allow for all members
of a training company to be housed in the same barracks.  Our
analysis assumed that male and female barracks would house recruits
from more than one training company although each company could be
provided a separate floor for housing its members. 

Over the next 5 years, the Army projects a substantial
increase--about 21 percent--in its annual recruit training load.  On
the basis of this projected increase, we estimated that Fort Leonard
Wood's fiscal
year 2003 peak recruit training population would be 9,292 recruits,
consisting of 6,725 males and 2,567 females.  To meet the housing
needs for these recruits, Fort Leonard Wood would need additional
barracks capacity, even if males and females continued to be housed
in the same barracks.  Although plans have not been finalized, the
Army recognizes the need to construct additional barracks to meet
future recruit housing requirements. 

Our analysis showed that Fort Leonard Wood would need 592 additional
barracks spaces to meet the projected recruit housing requirement in
fiscal year 2003 if males and females are housed in the same
barracks.  The analysis showed that if males and females are housed
in separate barracks, Fort Leonard Wood would need 635 additional
barracks spaces.  In either case, three new barracks each housing 290
recruits would be needed to meet the housing requirement.  For this
reason, construction costs would be the same whether males and
females are housed in the same or in separate barracks. 

Our estimate of the cost to construct three recruit barracks similar
to Fort Leonard Wood's existing barracks is about $22 million in
fiscal year 2000 dollars.  However, the Army's current concept for
new recruit barracks calls for the construction of a larger complex
consisting of barracks and other facilities for dining,
administration, training, and support functions.  The Army's standard
plan for this barracks complex includes housing for 1,200 recruits,
company operations and training spaces, a battalion headquarters,
classrooms, a dining hall, a central energy plant, and an outdoor
running track.  The Army estimated that such a complex, which would
meet the projected additional recruit housing requirements at Fort
Leonard Wood, would cost about $56 million.  Regardless of how the
Army decides to meet the projected recruit housing requirement, no
additional barracks construction costs would be required if male and
female recruits were housed in separate barracks.  Appendix V
contains additional details of our analysis. 


--------------------
\2 Because of several factors, including limited latrine and laundry
facilities in the barracks, Fort Leonard Wood usually assigns one
training unit, called a company, with 240 recruits to each barracks. 
However, headquarters officials responsible for the Army's barracks
facilities confirmed that each of the barracks can adequately house
290 recruits.  For this reason, in our analysis we used 290 as the
capacity of each barracks. 


      COMPLIANCE WITH SEPARATE AND
      SECURE PROVISIONS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1.1

Army officials stated that the barracks at Fort Leonard Wood are in
compliance with the requirement for separate and secure housing for
males and females.  In barracks that house both males and females,
males normally occupy the second and third floors and females occupy
the first floor.  Each floor contains sleeping and latrine areas and
is separated by permanent walls from other floors.  Separate
entrances are used for the male and female areas and a security watch
is maintained on each floor when recruits are in the sleeping areas. 
In addition, locked doors separating male and female areas are
alarmed and centrally monitored
24 hours a day. 

During our visit to Fort Leonard Wood in January 1999, we toured
three barracks.  These barracks provided separate and secure sleeping
and latrine areas for males and females. 


   SEPARATE BARRACKS AT FORT
   JACKSON
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2

Fort Jackson has 16 recruit barracks with a total housing capacity of
9,320 recruits.  Six of these barracks are of the Army's "starship"
design each with a housing capacity of 1,100 recruits.\3 Ten barracks
are the older three-story design, with a housing capacity of 272
recruits each.  Males and females in starship barracks are assigned
to separate bays of the buildings, and males and females in the older
three-story barracks are assigned either to separate floors or to
separate areas on the same floor of the buildings. 

During fiscal year 1998, the peak recruit population at Fort Jackson
numbered 7,047, consisting of 4,580 males and 2,467 females.  On the
basis of this peak population and the existing barracks inventory,
our analysis showed that Fort Jackson could provide housing for males
and females in separate buildings with no additional barracks
construction costs.  Similar to Fort Leonard Wood, assigning male and
female recruits to separate barracks would no longer allow for all
members of a training company to be housed in the same barracks
although members of the same company could be assigned to a separate
floor or area in the barracks. 

On the basis of the Army's projected increase in its annual recruit
training load over the next 5 years, we estimated that Fort Jackson's
fiscal
year 2003 peak recruit training population would number 8,715,
consisting of 5,429 males and 3,286 females.  On the basis of this
peak population and the existing barracks inventory, our analysis
showed that Fort Jackson could provide housing for males and females
in separate buildings with no additional barracks construction costs. 
Appendix V contains additional details of our analysis. 


--------------------
\3 A starship-designed barracks normally has three stories and five
separate wings.  The first floor is used for operations and training,
and the second and third floors are used for recruit housing. 


      COMPLIANCE WITH SEPARATE AND
      SECURE PROVISIONS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2.1

Army officials stated that the barracks at Fort Jackson require some
modifications to be in complete compliance with the recruit housing
provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1999.  In some of the older barracks at Fort Jackson, males and
females were assigned to separate areas on the same floors.  The
areas have separate entrances and provide separate sleeping and
latrine areas.  However, a temporary wall separates the male and
female areas.  The wall is designed so that it can be knocked down in
an emergency to provide an alternative exit from the area.  If the
wall is knocked down, an alarm sounds.  Army officials stated that
the temporary walls will be replaced with permanent walls with metal
doors.  Each door will have a concealed magnetic switch wired to an
alarm monitored 24 hours a day.  The Army estimated that the
modifications would cost about $314,000 and would be completed by
March 30, 1999.  To provide increased security, the Army also planned
modifications in the starship barracks, where males and females are
assigned to separate bays each containing sleeping and latrine areas. 
Each bay has an entry door and a fire escape door.  A watch is posted
at the entry door when recruits occupy the bay, and the fire escape
door is kept locked to the outside.  Army officials stated that they
plan to install monitored security alarms on each entry door.  The
estimated cost for the alarms was about $300,000, and the work was
expected to be completed by June 7, 1999. 

During our visit to Fort Jackson in January 1999, we toured two
barracks:  one of the starship design and one of the older design. 
The barracks provided separate and secure sleeping and latrine areas
for males and females.  However, as discussed above, an alarmed
temporary wall separated the male and female areas in the older
barracks. 


   SEPARATE BARRACKS AT FORT SILL
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:3

Fort Sill has five recruit barracks with a total housing capacity of
5,500 recruits.  Each of these barracks is of the newer starship
design with a housing capacity of 1,100 recruits.  Gender-integrated
basic training at Fort Sill is scheduled to start in May 1999. 

During fiscal year 1998, the peak recruit population at Fort Sill
numbered 3,460 males.  On the basis of the Army's projected increase
in its annual recruit training load, we estimated that Fort Sill's
fiscal year 2003 peak male recruit training population would number
4,101.  The Army estimated that Fort Sill's peak female recruit
population over the next 5 years would number 1,023, providing a
total peak population of 5,124 recruits.  On the basis of these
estimated numbers and the existing barracks inventory, our analysis
showed that Fort Sill could provide housing for males and females in
separate buildings with no additional barracks construction costs. 
Appendix V contains additional details of our analysis. 

Army officials stated that Fort Sill's barracks are designed so that
male and female recruits can be housed in compliance with the
separate and secure recruit housing provisions of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999.  We did not visit
Fort Sill during our review. 


   ARMY ESTIMATES OF ADDITIONAL
   BARRACKS COSTS
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:4

The Army previously estimated that $271 million would be required to
provide housing for male and female recruits in separate buildings at
Forts Leonard Wood, Jackson, and Sill.  This estimate included
construction of five new and modification of two existing starship
design barracks complexes.  In preparing the estimate, the Army
assumed that unit integrity would be maintained in barracks
assignments and that only one training company would be housed in a
barracks or barracks wing.  Under this assumption, significant new
barracks construction would be required because most barracks space
vacated when females moved out would remain vacant, requiring new
barracks to be built to house the females.  To illustrate, consider a
single recruit training company that occupies a three-story barracks,
with females assigned to the first floor and males assigned to the
second and third floors.  Under the Army's assumption, if the females
moved out, spaces on the first floor would not be reassigned to male
trainees from another company.  With no consolidation of male
recruits into fewer barracks, females would have no barracks to move
to, requiring construction of new barracks to house nearly the entire
female recruit population. 

Maintaining unit integrity is an important element of the Army's
training doctrine, and we believe that different training companies
could share a barracks without sacrificing unit integrity by
occupying separate floors or areas.  Such sharing already occurs in
the newer starship design recruit barracks.  Further, assuming
continuation of gender-integrated training, all recruits in a
training company would not be housed in the same barracks if male and
females recruits were required to be housed in separate buildings. 
We believe that effective leadership and management oversight could
overcome problems in sharing barracks space and that the added cost
of new construction could thereby be avoided.  Our estimates, as
discussed above, assumed that recruit barracks would be shared by
more than one training company, although each company could be
provided a separate floor for housing its members. 


   ARMY CONCERNS ABOUT SEPARATE
   BARRACKS
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:5

Army officials stated that they opposed housing male and female
recruits in separate barracks.  According to the officials,
gender-integrated training is important to the Army in order to train
recruits in a fashion mirroring the way they will operate and fight
in their operational units, and this training can be conducted most
effectively and efficiently when male and female recruits are
assigned to separate areas of the same barracks.  In their opinion,
keeping male and female recruits in the same barracks enhances unit
integrity and command and control of the training units. 

Army officials also stated that the current recruit housing practices
provide separate and secure housing for males and females and that
little, if any, additional security would be achieved if males and
females were housed in separate buildings.  The officials also stated
that placing males and females in separate barracks would (1) require
an increase in the number of enlisted female supervisors needed to
manage the buildings and (2) reduce training effectiveness because of
the additional coordination required and the time lost to provide for
travel between barracks whenever males and females attended the same
training event. 


SEPARATE BARRACKS IN THE NAVY
========================================================== Appendix II

The Navy's sole installation for conducting recruit basic training is
the Navy Recruit Training Command at Great Lakes, Illinois.  The Navy
has no plans to conduct basic training at any other location. 
Recruit basic training at Great Lakes is gender-integrated and
housing for males and females is provided on separate floors of the
same barracks. 


   COSTS OF SEPARATE BARRACKS
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:1

Great Lakes operates its barracks under a waiver from the Department
of Defense (DOD) recruit barracks standard, which allows each
occupant
72 net square feet of living area.  Under the waiver, Great Lakes
provides each barracks occupant with 50 net square feet of living
area.  This provides Great Lakes with a maximum capacity of 16,168
recruits in 15 barracks.  Each barracks has three floors, and each
floor has four separate sections, called compartments, for a total of
12 compartments.  Each compartment includes sleeping and latrine
areas and normally houses a training unit, called a division,
consisting of 88 to 94 recruits.  Eight compartments of one barracks
are used to house recruits removed from the normal training sequence
for medical reasons or for remedial training needs. 

During fiscal year 1998, the peak recruit population at Great Lakes
numbered 14,515, consisting of 11,718 males and 2,797 females.  With
this peak training population and the existing barracks inventory,
Great Lakes could provide housing for males and females in separate
buildings with no additional barracks construction.  This assumes
that Great Lakes continues to operate under the waiver allowing 50
net square feet of living area for each recruit. 

The Navy forecasts an increase in its recruit training load over the
next
5 years.  Between fiscal year 1999 and 2003, the Navy forecasts a
peak recruit training population of 17,217 recruits, consisting of
14,634 males and 2,583 females.  The Navy was considering options for
meeting the expected increase in recruit housing requirements. 
Although plans have not been finalized, Great Lakes officials stated
that one additional barracks with three floors and 12 compartments
would be needed, providing that males and females continued to occupy
separate floors of the same barracks.  Using standard DOD estimating
methods and allowing 72 net square feet of living area for each
recruit, we estimated that this new barracks, with a maximum capacity
of 1,128 recruits, would cost about $32 million in fiscal year 2000
dollars. 

We estimated that if males and females were housed in separate
buildings, the same amount of additional housing, 1,128 spaces in 12
compartments, would be required to meet the projected peak recruit
populations for males and females.  However, instead of one building,
two barracks would be required--one with 752 spaces in eight
compartments and one with 376 spaces in four compartments.  Assuming
that the Navy would construct an eight-compartment barracks and a
four-compartment barracks, the cost of the two barracks would be
about the same as the cost to meet the increased training population
with males and females in the same barracks--$32 million.  Thus, we
concluded that no additional construction costs would be required if
males and females were housed in separate barracks.  Appendix V
contains additional details of our analysis. 

Officials at Great Lakes stated that they would prefer that any new
barracks constructed at Great Lakes be similar to the existing
12-compartment barracks.  They stated that, instead of an
eight-compartment and a four-compartment barracks, two 12-compartment
barracks would be needed to meet the projected peak recruit
populations if males and females were housed separately.  The
officials stated that although this approach could result in excess
barracks capacity, recruit population projections are uncertain and
some housing flexibility should be included in any building plans. 
Constructing an additional barracks would require another $32
million. 


   NAVY CONCERNS ABOUT SEPARATE
   BARRACKS
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:2

Navy officials at Great Lakes stated that they opposed housing male
and female recruits in separate barracks.  They stated that current
practices provide separate and secure housing for males and females
and that little, if any, additional security would be gained if males
and females were in separate buildings.  The officials also stated
that placing females in separate barracks would require an increase
in the number of enlisted female supervisors needed to manage the
buildings.  According to the officials, this would present a problem
because the Navy already has a shortage of females in this skill
area. 


   COMPLIANCE WITH SEPARATE AND
   SECURE PROVISIONS
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:3

Navy officials stated that the barracks at Great Lakes are in
compliance with the recruit housing provisions of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999.  In barracks that
house both males and females, males occupy the first and second
floors and females occupy the third floor.  Each of the four
compartments on each floor contains sleeping and latrine areas and is
separated by permanent walls from other compartments.  Each
compartment has three entrances.  The front and rear entrances are
kept locked and only training supervisors have keys.  The third
entrance is an emergency exit in the latrine area.  This entrance is
locked to the outside and is centrally monitored with an alarm
system.  Also, a security watch monitors access to each compartment
24 hours a day, and each barracks has a security watch at the main
entrance to the building on the first floor 24 hours a day. 

During our visit to Great Lakes in January 1999, we toured one
barracks.  The barracks provided separate and secure sleeping and
latrine areas for males and females. 


SEPARATE BARRACKS IN THE AIR FORCE
========================================================= Appendix III

The Air Force's sole installation for conducting recruit basic
training is Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas.  The Air
Force has no plans to conduct basic training at any other location. 
Recruit basic training at Lackland is gender-integrated and housing
for males and females is provided in separate, discrete areas of the
same barracks. 


   COSTS OF SEPARATE BARRACKS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:1

Lackland has seven similar, three-story barracks.  Each building
provides recruit housing on the second and third floors.  Each floor
includes
10 separate dormitories, and each dormitory contains sleeping and
latrine areas for one training unit, called a flight.  Although the
standard size of a training unit is 48 trainees, 50 to 60 trainees
are often assigned to each unit.  Using 50 trainees as a typical unit
size, each barracks at Lackland has a capacity of 1,000 trainees and
Lackland's total recruit capacity numbers 7,000. 

During fiscal year 1998, the peak recruit population at Lackland
numbered 5,684, consisting of 4,178 males and 1,506 females.  Air
Force officials projected that the recruit training load at Lackland
would remain constant over the next 5 years.  Therefore, no
significant change in the peak number of male and female recruits was
expected. 

With the existing barracks inventory and on the basis of the fiscal
year 1998 and projected peak male and female recruit populations, our
analysis showed that Lackland could provide housing for males and
females in separate buildings with no additional barracks
construction costs.  Air Force officials said that while our analysis
is technically correct, it assumed that all barracks would be used
for housing recruits.  As such, the analysis did not consider that
the Air Force plans to keep one barracks closed at any given time to
provide for renovations.  If all barracks were used for housing, the
officials said the planned renovations would have to be terminated
and there would also be some increase in costs to operate and
maintain the additional building.  The Air Force estimated that about
$1.4 million would be required to initially open the additional
building and that $1.3 million would be required annually to operate
and maintain the building.  Because Lackland's housing capacity
exceeds peak recruit requirements by over 1,300 spaces, we believe
that, as an alternative to halting planned renovations, the Air Force
could perform the renovation work in phases by closing sections of a
barracks instead of an entire barracks at a time.  Appendix V
contains additional details of our analysis. 


   AIR FORCE CONCERNS ABOUT
   SEPARATE BARRACKS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2

Air Force officials stated that they oppose housing males and females
in separate barracks during recruit basic training.  First, they
noted that because male and female recruits are already assigned to
physically separate and secure areas, little, if any, additional
security would be achieved if males and females were in separate
buildings.  Second, they stated that assigning females to separate
buildings would increase requirements for female training supervisors
and thereby increase training costs.  Third, they noted that
Lackland's barracks are not all located in the same area--a distance
of nearly a mile separates some of the buildings.  The separation is
not currently a problem because males and females that train together
are housed in the same building.  However, if housed in separate
buildings, travel time would be required whenever males and females
attended the same training event.  The officials estimated that up to
3 hours a day could be spent in needless travel between barracks and
gender-integrated training events, making it extremely difficult to
continue gender-integrated training.  Finally, the officials stated
that gender-integrated training is essential to the Air Force and
that segregating males and females into separate barracks would
adversely affect gender-integrated training effectiveness and in the
long run degrade operational unit readiness. 


   COMPLIANCE WITH SEPARATE AND
   SECURE PROVISIONS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:3

Air Force officials stated that the barracks at Lackland are in
compliance with the recruit housing provisions of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999.  Male and female
recruits are housed separately in discrete dormitories, each of which
contains sleeping and latrine areas.  Each dormitory has a separate
entrance, and access is controlled by a watch posted at the door. 
The main entrance to each barracks also has a security watch 24 hours
a day and all entryways and fire exits are monitored by surveillance
cameras. 

Air Force officials stated that one modification is planned for
Lackland's barracks to increase security.  Currently, a door connects
the dormitories in each barracks.  The doors are solid wood, 2 inches
thick, and are alarmed and kept locked at all times.  Keys to the
doors are controlled by training supervisors.  The doors were
included in the original construction of the barracks because the
buildings were designed for use as emergency shelters, if needed.  To
obtain increased security, Lackland plans to remove the doors and
have the passageways sealed with cinder block walls.  This work will
be done during planned renovations of the barracks, and all work is
expected to be completed by March 2001.  The Air Force estimated that
this work will cost about $87,500. 

During our visit to Lackland in January 1999, we toured one barracks. 
The barracks provided separate and secure sleeping and latrine areas
for males and females. 


SEPARATE BARRACKS IN THE MARINE
CORPS
========================================================== Appendix IV

The Marine Corps conducts recruit basic training for males and
females at only one installation--the Marine Corps Recruit Depot,
Parris Island, South Carolina.  The Marine Corps has no plans to
conduct basic training for females at any other location.  Recruit
basic training at Parris Island is gender separate and housing for
male and female recruits is primarily provided in separate barracks. 


   COSTS OF SEPARATE BARRACKS
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:1

Parris Island has 25 barracks with a total housing capacity for 8,324
recruits.  Normally, 18 buildings with a capacity of 6,772 trainees
are available for male recruits, and 6 buildings with a capacity of
1,152 trainees are available for female recruits.  One building is
used for male and female recruits assigned to the Support Battalion
for medical rehabilitation, physical conditioning, or remedial swim
training.  This building has eight separate bays, and females are
assigned to one of these bays. 

During fiscal year 1998, the peak recruit population at Parris Island
numbered 6,505, consisting of 5,708 males and 797 females.  Marine
Corps officials projected that the recruit training load at Parris
Island would remain constant over the next 5 years.  Therefore, no
significant change in the peak number of male and female recruits was
expected. 

With one exception, the Marine Corps already houses male and female
recruits in separate barracks.  If required, Parris Island has
sufficient barracks capacity to move the females in the one shared
barracks to a separate building.  Thus, Parris Island would need no
additional barracks construction if the services were required to
house males and females in separate buildings. 


   MARINE CORPS COMMENTS ABOUT
   SEPARATE BARRACKS
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:2

The Marine Corps does not conduct gender-integrated basic training
similar to the other services.  Marine Corps officials stated that
they support separate barracks for males and females during Marine
Corps recruit basic training. 


   COMPLIANCE WITH SEPARATE AND
   SECURE PROVISIONS
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:3

Marine Corps officials stated that Parris Island is in compliance
with the Fiscal Year 1999 National Defense Authorization Act's
requirements for separate and secure housing for males and females. 
Only 1 of the 25 barracks at Parris Island houses both males and
females.  In this building, males and females are assigned to
separate bays with separate entrances and separate sleeping and
latrine areas.  The bays are separated by permanent walls, and the
female bay has alarmed doors and a security watch posted when
occupied.  During our visit to Parris Island in January 1999, we
toured five barracks, including the barracks that houses males and
females.  The barracks provided separate and secure sleeping and
latrine areas for males and females. 


COMPARISON OF PEAK RECRUIT
BARRACKS REQUIREMENTS AND COSTS
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003
=========================================================== Appendix V

In our analysis of each installation conducting gender-integrated
training, we determined the costs of providing housing for male and
female recruits in the same barracks and in separate barracks.  The
analysis matched the peak number of barracks spaces required over the
next 5 years with the number of barracks spaces available.  If
additional spaces would be needed to meet housing needs, we estimated
the costs to construct the barracks.  As shown in the following
table, the analysis showed that the amount of new construction and
the associated costs would be the same whether male and female
recruits are housed in the same or in separate barracks. 



                                     Table V
                     
                      1 Comparison of Barracks Requirements
                                    and Costs

                              (Dollars in millions)

                                                Males and females in separate
                                                           barracks
                                              ----------------------------------
                                   Males and
                                  females in
                                         the
                  Barracks              same
                  space             barracks       Males     Females       Total
Installation      ------------  ------------  ----------  ----------  ==========
Fort Leonard      Required             9,292       6,725       2,567       9,292
 Wood
                  Available            8,700       6,090       2,610       8,700
                  Additional             592         635           0         635
                   needed
                  GAO                    $22         $22          $0         $22
                   estimated
                   cost
Fort Jackson      Required             8,715       5,429       3,286       8,715
                  Available            9,320       6,020       3,300       9,320
                  Additional               0           0           0           0
                   needed
                  GAO                     $0          $0          $0          $0
                   estimated
                   cost
Fort Sill         Required             5,124       4,101       1,023       5,124
                  Available            5,500       4,400       1,100       5,500
                  Additional               0           0           0           0
                   needed
                  GAO                     $0          $0          $0          $0
                   estimated
                   cost
Great Lakes       Required            17,217      14,634       2,583      17,217
 Naval
 Training
 Command\a
                  Available           16,168      13,912       2,256      16,168
                  Additional           1,049         722         327       1,049
                   needed
                  GAO                    $32         $21         $11         $32
                   estimated
                   cost
Lackland Air      Required             5,684       4,178       1,506       5,684
 Force
 Base
                  Available            7,000       5,000       2,000       7,000
                  Additional               0           0           0           0
                   needed
                  GAO                     $0          $0          $0          $0
                   estimated
                   cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  The Marine Corps is not included in the table because male and
female recruits are already in separate barracks. 

\a Great Lakes data is fiscal year 2002, its projected peak year. 


OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
========================================================== Appendix VI

As directed by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1999, we determined each military service's costs if required to
provide housing for male and female recruits during basic training in
separate structures.  We also (1) obtained the services' views on
housing male and female recruits in separate barracks and (2)
reviewed the services' compliance with the act's requirement to
provide separate and secure areas for male and female recruits if
they are housed in the same barracks. 

We performed work at the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the
headquarters of each military service.  We also visited each military
installation, except Fort McClellan, that conducts recruit basic
training concurrently for males and females--Fort Leonard Wood,
Missouri; Fort Jackson, South Carolina; Great Lakes Naval Recruit
Training Command, Illinois; Lackland Air Force Base, Texas; and
Marine Corps Recruit Depot, Parris Island, South Carolina.  We did
not visit Fort McClellan because the Army plans to transfer its
gender-integrated basic training function to Fort Leonard Wood during
the summer of 1999.  We also did not visit Fort Sill, which is
scheduled to begin gender-integrated training in 1999, but we did
obtain and review applicable information from the installation.  For
the purposes of this report, we included in basic training the Army's
One Station Unit Training.  This training combines basic training
with advanced individual training into one continuous course. 

To determine the costs of providing housing for male and female
recruits in separate buildings, we interviewed responsible agency
personnel and reviewed information from each service pertaining to
(1) male and female peak recruit training populations for fiscal year
1998 and projected male and female peak recruit populations for
fiscal years 1999-2003; (2) existing and planned recruit barracks
inventories, capacities, and assignment practices; and (3) military
construction costs for recruit barracks.  At each installation
visited, we discussed with local officials how the recruit training
population could be matched with the existing barracks inventory to
provide separate housing for males and females and whether additional
barracks construction would be required.  If additional barracks were
required, we independently estimated construction costs using DOD's
standard methods for estimating costs of military construction
projects.\1

To obtain the services' views on housing male and female recruits in
separate barracks and to review the services' compliance with the
act's provisions requiring separate and secure housing, we discussed
the issues with officials at service headquarters and at the
installations conducting basic training concurrently for males and
females.  Also, during our visits to the basic training
installations, we toured barracks to observe how the provisions were
being met.  If compliance had not been achieved, we obtained
information concerning the installation's plans for meeting the
provisions. 

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


--------------------
\1 We estimated barracks construction costs on the basis of the
square footage of each required barracks.  First, to determine square
footage, we multiplied our estimate of the number of required
additional barracks spaces by the DOD maximum gross building square
feet allowed for each recruit barracks space.  Then, to determine
construction costs, we multiplied the square footage by the DOD
standard recruit barracks construction cost per square foot for
fiscal year 2000.  Finally, using DOD and service data, we adjusted
this amount for geographic area cost differences and added cost
allowances for support facilities; contingencies; and supervision,
inspections, and overhead. 


MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
========================================================= Appendix VII

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
Sharon Reid, Senior Evaluator


*** End of document. ***