Poor Design and Management Hamper Army's Basic Skills Education Program

Gao ID: FPCD-83-19 June 20, 1983

GAO reviewed the Army's basic skills education program to evaluate whether the program: (1) was properly designed to determine the basic skills needed to do Army jobs; and (2) is being effectively implemented at initial entry training bases and permanent duty stations.

GAO found that, after 4 years and $160 million in expenditures, a small percentage of soldiers have achieved the Army's prescribed goals. GAO found examples of program abuse, including ineligible soldiers participating in the program obtaining high school equivalency certificates during on-duty hours. When it designed the program, the Army did not identify the basic skills required for each military job. Implementation problems also have hampered the program. Course hours, duration, and costs differ widely. The Army also has not evaluated the overall effectiveness of its program. Army regulations assign evaluation responsibilities to the Army Adjutant General's Office and direct installation commanders to keep data on program quality and effectiveness. In the fall of 1979, the Army established an evaluation and services division in its Education Directorate to monitor and evaluate the basic skills education program. Studies show that short-term remedial programs do not provide the competency needed to master highly technical material in many Army jobs and that substantial resources would be required to bridge the literacy gap.

Recommendations

Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.

Director: Henry W. Connor Team: General Accounting Office: National Security and International Affairs Division Phone: (202) 275-4141


The Justia Government Accountability Office site republishes public reports retrieved from the U.S. GAO These reports should not be considered official, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Justia.