<mods xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3" version="3.3" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3 http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/v3/mods-3-3.xsd" ID="P0b002ee180394a35">
<name type="corporate">
 <namePart>United States Government Publishing Office</namePart>
 <role>
  <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">publisher</roleTerm>
  <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="code">pbl</roleTerm>
</role>
 <role>
  <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">distributor</roleTerm>
  <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="code">dst</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="corporate">
 <namePart>United States</namePart>
 <namePart>Government Accountability Office</namePart>
 <namePart>National Security and International Affairs Division</namePart>
 <role>
  <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
  <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="code">aut</roleTerm>
</role>
 <description>Government Organization</description>
</name>
<typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource>
<genre authority="marcgt">government publication</genre>
<language>
 <languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm>
</language>
<extension>
 <collectionCode>GAOREPORTS</collectionCode>
 <category>Legislative Agency Publications</category>
 <waisDatabaseName>gao</waisDatabaseName>
 <branch>legislative</branch>
 <dateIngested>2010-08-12</dateIngested>
</extension>
<originInfo>
 <publisher>U.S. Government Printing Office</publisher>
 <dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">1999-02-24</dateIssued>
 <issuance>monographic</issuance>
</originInfo>
<physicalDescription>
 <note type="source content type">deposited</note>
 <digitalOrigin>born digital</digitalOrigin>
 <extent>24 p.</extent>
</physicalDescription>
<classification authority="sudocs">GA 1.13:NSIAD-99-56</classification>
<identifier type="uri">https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/GAOREPORTS-NSIAD-99-56</identifier>
<identifier type="local">P0b002ee180394a35</identifier>
<identifier type="former package identifier">f:ns99056</identifier>
<recordInfo>
 <recordContentSource authority="marcorg">DGPO</recordContentSource>
 <recordCreationDate encoding="w3cdtf">2010-08-12</recordCreationDate>
 <recordChangeDate encoding="w3cdtf">2011-03-28</recordChangeDate>
 <recordIdentifier source="DGPO">GAOREPORTS-NSIAD-99-56</recordIdentifier>
 <recordOrigin>machine generated</recordOrigin>
 <languageOfCataloging>
  <languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm>
</languageOfCataloging>
</recordInfo>
<accessCondition type="GPO scope determination">fdlp</accessCondition>
<extension>
 <docClass>REPORT</docClass>
 <accessId>GAOREPORTS-NSIAD-99-56</accessId>
 <reportNumber>NSIAD-99-56</reportNumber>
 <subject>Future budget projections</subject>
 <subject>Military cost control</subject>
 <subject>Comparative analysis</subject>
 <subject>Military training</subject>
 <subject>Military budgets</subject>
 <subject>Education or training costs</subject>
 <identifier>Navy Training Technology Initiative</identifier>
 <identifier>DOD Future Years Defense Program</identifier>
 <identifier>Army Distance Learning Program</identifier>
 <identifier>Total Army School System</identifier>
 <type>Letter Report</type>
 <seriesAbbrev>NSIAD</seriesAbbrev>
</extension>
<titleInfo>
 <title>Defense Infrastructure: Funding Risks in Services&apos; 1999 Central Training Programs</title>
</titleInfo>
<abstract>Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO examined the significant
differences in two Department of Defense training programs, focusing on
the: (1) training categories and military services with the most
significant funding changes from the 1998 to the 1999 Future Years
Defense Program (FYDP); (2) bases for the changes; and (3) potential
impact of the changes on the services&apos; future training budgets.&lt;p/&gt;GAO noted that: (1) the total funding for central training was projected
to be $8.4 billion less in the 1999 FYDP than the 1998 FYDP; (2) the
categories with the most significant changes in each of the services
were the Army&apos;s training of new personnel; and the Army&apos;s, the Navy&apos;s,
and the Air Force&apos;s professional and skill training, aviation and flight
training; (3) the majority of the $8.4 billion decrease was due to
changes in the Army&apos;s central training program; (4) $4 billion of the
decrease in Army funding was to correct for an error in the 1998 FYDP
that overstated the cost of enlistees&apos; student salaries; (5) another
$1.1 billion of the decrease related to the realignment of Army aviation
procurement out of central training; (6) the remaining $3.3 billion
primarily came from projected savings from: (a) the Army, the Navy and
the Air Force reducing the number of personnel projected to be trained;
(b) all of the military services contracting some installation support
functions with lower cost providers; and (c) the Army and the Navy
implementing training initiatives that utilize technology and other cost
savings measures; (7) additionally, some of the $3.3 billion came from
cuts by the Army and the Navy in funding levels for installation support
and underfunding by the Army of some of its training programs; (8) the
Army, the Navy and the Air Force may not be able to accomplish their
central training programs at the funding levels in the 1999 FYDP; (9)
the services are experiencing lower-than-expected retention rates for
enlisted personnel, which will require increased accessions and
additional funds for new personnel and skill training; (10) the services
projected savings in installation support and funded real property
maintenance at minimum maintenance levels; (11) if the programmed
savings do not materialize, the services will need additional funds to
maintain the current levels of maintenance or add to the existing
backlog of real property maintenance; (12) the Army did not fully fund
training initiatives, but it plans to fully fund these initiatives in
the future; (13) the Army already had to request supplemental funding
for fiscal year 1999 for the Army reserve professional development
training programs because it found that programmed reductions adversely
affected the programs; (14) the Army&apos;s actual aviation training
workloads are higher than those used to develop FYDP 1999; and (15) the
Army and the Navy programmed savings from training initiatives that use
technology to reduce training.</abstract>
<location>
 <url displayLabel="HTML rendition" access="raw object">https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GAOREPORTS-NSIAD-99-56/html/GAOREPORTS-NSIAD-99-56.htm</url>
 <url displayLabel="PDF rendition" access="raw object">https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GAOREPORTS-NSIAD-99-56/pdf/GAOREPORTS-NSIAD-99-56.pdf</url>
</location>
<identifier type="preferred citation">GAO/NSIAD-99-56</identifier>
<location>
 <url displayLabel="Content Detail" access="object in context">https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/GAOREPORTS-NSIAD-99-56</url>
</location>
<note>Letter Report</note>
<extension>
 <searchTitle>GAO/NSIAD-99-56; Defense Infrastructure: Funding Risks in Services&apos; 1999 Central Training Programs;
            </searchTitle>
</extension>
<subject>
 <topic>Future budget projections</topic>
 <topic>Military cost control</topic>
 <topic>Comparative analysis</topic>
 <topic>Military training</topic>
 <topic>Military budgets</topic>
 <topic>Education or training costs</topic>
 <topic>Navy Training Technology Initiative</topic>
 <topic>DOD Future Years Defense Program</topic>
 <topic>Army Distance Learning Program</topic>
 <topic>Total Army School System</topic>
</subject>
</mods>