Gender Integration in Basic Training: The Services Are Using a Variety of
Approaches (Stmnt. for the Rec., 06/05/97, GAO/T-NSIAD-97-174).

GAO discussed its report on gender integration in basic training,
focusing on the: (1) extent to which the services have gender-integrated
basic training; and (2) effect on performance of men and women in
gender-integration basic training compared with that of men and women
whose training is segregated.

GAO noted that: (1) the military services' approaches to the integration
of men and women during basic training range from integrating some
training units to having separate gender units that share some training
venues with units of the opposite gender to providing totally separate
training; (2) data to compare the performance of trainees in
gender-integrated units and segregated units is not available from all
of the services; (3) limited information on the impact of gender
integration from two studies done for the Navy and the Army suggests
that gender-integrated basic training programs do not negatively affect
trainees' performance; (4) a 1992 study done for the Navy reported no
impact on performance and improvement in teamwork for both men and women
trained in gender-integrated units; (5) a 1996 study of gender
integration in the Army reported that women's performance improved in
integrated training units and men's performance was not degraded; (6)
because the data available to evaluate the impact of gender integration
was so limited, GAO recommended that the Department of Defense (DOD)
gather more extensive data; and (7) DOD concurred with GAO's
recommendation and is in the process of collecting the data.

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

 REPORTNUM:  T-NSIAD-97-174
     TITLE:  Gender Integration in Basic Training: The Services Are 
             Using a Variety of Approaches
      DATE:  06/05/97
   SUBJECT:  Military training
             Women
             Comparative analysis
             Enlisted personnel
             Military recruiting
             Data collection
IDENTIFIER:  Army Basic Training Program
             Navy Recruit Training Program
             
**************************************************************************
* This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a GAO        *
* report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles,       *
* headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major divisions and subdivisions *
* of the text, such as Chapters, Sections, and Appendixes, are           *
* identified by double and single lines.  The numbers on the right end   *
* of these lines indicate the position of each of the subsections in the *
* document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the page       *
* numbers of the printed product.                                        *
*                                                                        *
* No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although figure    *
* captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but may not resemble     *
* those in the printed version.                                          *
*                                                                        *
* A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO Document    *
* Distribution Facility by calling (202) 512-6000, by faxing your        *
* request to (301) 258-4066, or by writing to P.O. Box 6015,             *
* Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015. We are unable to accept electronic orders *
* for printed documents at this time.                                    *
**************************************************************************


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


Before the Subcommittee on Personnel, Committee on Armed Services,
U.S.  Senate

For Release on Delivery
Expected at
9:30 a.m., EDT
on Thursday, June 5, 1997

GENDER INTEGRATION IN BASIC
TRAINING:  - THE SERVICES ARE
USING A VARIETY OF APPROACHES

Statement for the Record of Mark E.  Gebicke, Director,
Military Operations and Capabilities Issues, National Security and
International Affairs Division

GAO/T-NSIAD-97-174

GAO/NSIAD-97-174T


(703212)


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

  DOD - Department of Defense

============================================================ Chapter 0

Mr.  Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

I am pleased to provide a statement for the record on our report on
gender integration in basic training.\1 This statement addresses (1)
the extent to which the services have gender-integrated basic
training and (2) the performance of men and women in
gender-integrated basic training compared with that of men and women
whose training is segregated. 

In summary, the military services' approaches to the integration of
men and women during basic training range from integrating some
training units to having separate gender units that share some
training venues with units of the opposite gender to providing
totally separate training. 

Data to compare the performance of trainees in gender-integrated
units and segregated units is not available from all of the services. 
Limited information on the impact of gender integration from two
studies done for the Navy and the Army suggests that
gender-integrated basic training programs do not negatively affect
trainees' performance.  A 1992 study done for the Navy reported no
impact on performance and improvement in teamwork for both men and
women trained in gender-integrated units.\2 A 1996 study of gender
integration in the Army reported that women's performance improved in
gender-integrated training units and men's performance was not
degraded.\3 Because the data available to evaluate the impact of
gender integration was so limited, we recommended that the Department
of Defense (DOD) gather more extensive data.  DOD concurred with our
recommendation and is in the process of collecting the data. 


--------------------
\1 Basic Training:  Services Are Using a Variety of Approaches to
Gender Integration (GAO/NSIAD-96-153, June 10, 1996). 

\2 Jerry C.  Scarpate and Mary Anne O'Neill, "Evaluation of Gender
Integration at Recruit Training Command." Defense Equal Opportunity
Management Institute, July 1992. 

\3 Dr.  Zita M.  Simutis and Dr.  Jacqueline A.  Mottern, "Basic
Combat Training in a Gender-Integrated Environment." Briefing for
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) by the
Army Research Institute, January 25, 1996. 


   BACKGROUND
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:1

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


   DEGREE OF TRAINEE GENDER
   INTEGRATION VARIES
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2

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



                                Table 1
                
                Selected Aspects of the Services' Basic
                           Training Programs

                         (Figures in percents)


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

Navy              Same\a            Yes                    100      25

Air Force         Same\a            No                       0       0

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

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

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

The Marine Corps does not conduct gender-integrated basic
training--men and women are trained separately.  Marine Corps
officials told us they changed their basic training program for men
and women in October 1996.  At the time we did our original audit
work, the program of instruction for men and women was different. 
Men received a 24-day course of Marine combat training after their
basic training, whereas women received only an additional week of
basic training that incorporated an abbreviated course of Marine
combat training.  In addition, only the men were trained in combat
hitting skills and pugil sticks.  Now, according to the Marine Corps,
the program of instruction for men and women is the same. 


   LIMITED DATA SUGGESTS THAT
   GENDER INTEGRATION DOES NOT
   ERODE PERFORMANCE
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3

We had little data to use to compare the effectiveness of integrated
and segregated training because of curriculum changes, a short
history of integration, and few records documenting trainees'
performance.  The limited data that is available, however, suggests
that gender-integrated basic training programs do not negatively
affect the trainees' performance. 

The Marine Corps does not have integrated training and therefore has
no comparative data.  The Air Force provided some performance data on
its trainees by gender but had no data that could be used to compare
the performance of training units.  Thus, we could not compare
same-gender pairs of flights with opposite-gender pairs. 

The Navy-sponsored 1992 study showed that gender-integrated training
did not affect the results of performance tests and improved
teamwork.  Since that time, the Navy has changed its basic training
program of instruction significantly, placing greater emphasis on
physical training.  The Navy could not provide data to compare the
performance of trainees in integrated and segregated units using this
new program of instruction. 

The 1996 Army-sponsored study concluded that in gender-integrated
units, women's performance improved and men's performance was not
degraded.  This conclusion was based on a 3-year study of measures of
performance such as physical fitness, marksmanship, and individual
proficiency test results.  We compared this study's results with some
performance data the Army provided for fiscal years 1993-95 for about
80 percent of the trainees from an all-male training location. 
Although information on the other 20 percent was not available,
officials at the all-male location said that they believed the 80
percent was representative of the whole.  This data indicates that
the pass rates for male trainees in the gender-integrated companies
exceeded the pass rates for trainees at the all-male location in
those categories of physical performance for which data was
available--the Army physical fitness test and the basic rifle
marksmanship test (see table 2). 



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

                         (Figures in percents)


                                          All-            All-
                                          male  Integr    male  Integr
                                        locati    ated  locati    ated
Fiscal year                                 on   units      on   units
--------------------------------------  ------  ------  ------  ------
1993                                        97      98      97      98
1994                                        89      99      97      98
1995                                        88      99      96      98
----------------------------------------------------------------------

   DATA TO COMPARE CURRENT AND
   PREVIOUS ARMY GENDER-INTEGRATED
   PROGRAMS DOES NOT EXIST
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4

Although the Army had gender-integrated basic training in the late
1970s and early 1980s, the Army has no records of those programs or
their results to compare with those on its current program and
results.  However, we did find reports of a 1976 Army test of the
same basic training program of instruction for men and women.\4

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

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

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

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

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

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

To evaluate the effectiveness of each service's approach to the
integration of recruit training, we recommended that the Secretary of
Defense direct the services to retain and analyze comparative
performance data for men and women in single-gender and
gender-integrated training units.  DOD concurred with the
recommendation, stating it would instruct each of the services to
retain and analyze such data over a 1-year period, to be completed by
fiscal year 1998. 


--------------------
\4 Performance data is reported in Basic Initial Entry Training Test
Report, Department of the Army, December 30, 1976.  Attitudinal data
is reported in Basic Initial Entry Training Test Attitude Survey,
U.S.  Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences,
September 1978. 


*** End of document. ***