Military Housing
Opportunity for Reducing Planned Military Construction Costs for Barracks Gao ID: GAO-03-257R January 7, 2003We are reviewing the Department of Defense's (DOD) management of its unaccompanied enlisted permanent party housing, commonly referred to as barracks for unmarried servicemembers. We understand that over the next few years the services plan to eliminate barracks with gang latrines and provide private sleeping rooms (meet DOD's 1+1 barracks design standard) for all permanent party servicemembers. The Navy has an additional goal to provide barracks for sailors who currently live aboard ships when in homeport. To implement these goals, the services plan to spend about $6 billion over the next 7 years to construct new barracks. In addition to reviewing the services' plans and exploring opportunities for reducing costs, one of our objectives is to assess the consistency of and the rationale behind the services' barracks occupancy requirements. While we expect to complete our review of DOD's management of military barracks early in 2003, the purpose of this interim report is to bring to the attention Secretary of Defense the widely varying standards among the services regarding who should live in barracks, the effect this can have on program costs and quality of life, and the apparently out-of-date policy guidance on this subject. Timely resolution of these matters could potentially affect future budget decisions.
The DOD Housing Management manual, which provides policy guidance about who should live in barracks, appears to be out of date and is under revision, and the military services have adopted different barracks occupancy requirements. The rationale for the services' requirements, and in particular for the requirement that more experienced junior service members live in barracks, appears to be a matter of military judgment and preference with less emphasis on systematic, objective analyses. The differences among service requirements have significant implications. Requiring more personnel (more pay grades) to live in barracks than is justified results in increased barracks program and construction costs and may be inconsistent with DOD's policy to maximize reliance on civilian housing to the extent this policy is applied to barracks. There are also quality-of-life implications because most junior service members prefer to live off base.
RecommendationsOur 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: Team: Phone:GAO-03-257R, Military Housing: Opportunity for Reducing Planned Military Construction Costs for Barracks
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-257R
entitled 'Military Housing: Opportunity for Reducing Planned Military
Construction Costs for Barracks' which was released on January 07,
2003.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products‘ accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
January 7, 2003:
The Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld:
Secretary of Defense:
Subject:Military Housing: Opportunity for Reducing Planned Military
Construction Costs for Barracks:
Dear Mr. Secretary:
We are reviewing the Department of Defense‘s (DOD) management of its
unaccompanied enlisted permanent party housing, commonly referred to as
barracks for unmarried servicemembers. We understand that over the next
few years the services plan to eliminate barracks with gang latrines
and provide private sleeping rooms (meet DOD‘s 1+1 barracks design
standard)[Footnote 1] for all permanent party servicemembers. The Navy
has an additional goal to provide barracks for sailors who currently
live aboard ships when in homeport. To implement these goals, the
services plan to spend about $6 billion over the next 7 years to
construct new barracks. In addition to reviewing the services‘ plans
and exploring opportunities for reducing costs, one of our objectives
is to assess the consistency of and the rationale behind the services‘
barracks occupancy requirements. While we expect to complete our review
of DOD‘s management of military barracks early in 2003, the purpose of
this interim report is to bring to your attention the widely varying
standards among the services regarding who should live in barracks, the
effect this can have on program costs and quality of life, and the
apparently out-of-date policy guidance on this subject. Timely
resolution of these matters could potentially affect future budget
decisions.
Results in Brief:
The DOD Housing Management manual,[Footnote 2] which provides policy
guidance about who should live in barracks, appears to be out of date
and is under revision, and the military services have adopted different
barracks occupancy requirements. The rationale for the services‘
requirements, and in particular for the requirement that more
experienced junior servicemembers live in barracks, appears to be a
matter of military judgment and preference with less emphasis on
systematic, objective analyses. The differences among service
requirements have significant implications. Requiring more personnel
(more pay grades) to live in barracks than is justified results in
increased barracks program and construction costs and may be
inconsistent with DOD‘s policy to maximize reliance on civilian housing
to the extent this policy is applied to barracks. There are also
quality-of-life implications because most junior servicemembers prefer
to live off base.
Accordingly, we are recommending that DOD revise its barracks occupancy
guidance based, at least in part, on the results of objective,
systematic analyses and seek to ensure greater consistency in
requirements among the military services to the extent practical.
Services Use Different Standards
to Determine Barracks Requirements:
The DOD Housing Management manual requires enlisted servicemembers
without dependents in pay grades E6 and below to live in barracks, but
permits the military services to change this policy and require only
members in pay grades E5 and below to live in barracks. However,
significant differences exist among the services regarding personnel
who are required to live in barracks. More specifically:
* the Army requires unaccompanied personnel in pay grades E1 through E6
to live in barracks;
* the Navy has required unaccompanied personnel in pay grades E1
through
E4 with fewer than 4 years of service to live in barracks;
* the Air Force requires unaccompanied personnel in pay grades E1
through
E4 to live in barracks; and:
* the Marine Corps requires unaccompanied personnel in pay grades E1
through E5 to live in barracks.
Policy responsibility for military barracks rests with the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, while
responsibility for quality-of-life initiatives rests with the Under
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness. The two organizations
are responsible for initiatives that eliminate inadequate housing and
enhance the quality of life of military personnel. In discussing the
DOD Housing Management manual, DOD officials stated that this manual,
which has not been revised in more than 9 years, is out of date and
under revision. The officials also stated that each service should make
the final decision about who should live in barracks based on mission
requirements. Currently, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Military
Community and Family Policy of the Office of the Under Secretary of
Defense for Personnel and Readiness is reviewing DOD‘s and the
services‘ policies and practices for assigning junior servicemembers to
family housing and barracks, with a focus on quality-of-life concerns.
Service officials state that unaccompanied junior enlisted
servicemembers should live in barracks to help instill service core
values, provide for team building and mentoring, and meet operational
requirements. This policy appears reasonable for servicemembers who are
undergoing basic recruit and advanced individual training and initial
duty at their permanent assignment locations. However, the extent to
which this requirement should extend to more experienced junior
enlisted members is less clear and appears to be more a matter of
military judgment, command preference, and tradition rather than the
result of systematic, objective analyses. Without a more objective
basis for determining who should be required to live in barracks, the
services could err either in allowing some servicemembers to live off
base who may not yet be ready or unnecessarily hinder the quality of
life of more senior members for whom living off base would not present
a problem.
Over the years, the services have periodically changed the requirement
and allowed increasingly larger numbers of unaccompanied members to
live off base in local communities. For example, until 1996 the Air
Force required unaccompanied E5 personnel to live in barracks. Also, in
order to more quickly achieve its barracks improvement goals and reduce
planned construction costs, the Navy recently changed its policy so
that, in the future, barracks will be constructed only for E1 through
E3 servicemembers. Further, in all the services, single junior enlisted
servicemembers are required to live in barracks, but married members
are not.
Requirement Differences Have Significant
Cost and Quality-of-Life Implications:
The differences among the services in their requirements for
unaccompanied servicemembers to live in barracks have significant cost
and quality-of-life implications. Requiring more personnel (more pay
grades) to live in barracks obviously results in increased barracks
requirements. And, with the services planning extensive barracks
improvement programs and with barracks construction costing as much as
$80,000 to $100,000 per sleeping space, increased requirements
translate into higher barracks program costs.
The current Air Force situation illustrates the point. In June 1998,
the Air Force adopted a barracks assignment policy that called for
private rooms for unaccompanied permanent party personnel. To implement
the policy, the Air Force began assigning only one servicemember to
rooms that had been designed for two. This approach created a
significant shortage of available barracks spaces. To compensate for
the shortage until new barracks could be constructed, the Air Force
permitted many servicemembers normally assigned to barracks to live off
base with a housing allowance. In the United States, as of September
30, 2001, about 13,200 (75 percent) of the Air Force‘s unaccompanied
permanent party E4 personnel and 7,600 (27 percent) of its E3 personnel
were living off base with a housing allowance. Although many junior
enlisted servicemembers have lived off base since 1998, we have not
identified any systematic Air Force analyses that would suggest any
adverse effect on the indoctrination or job performance of these
servicemembers.[Footnote 3] Still, because its policy calls for all E1
through E4 servicemembers to live in barracks, the Air Force plans to
spend over $420 million during the next several years to construct new
barracks in order to bring all E1 through E4 members back on base.
Where appropriate, allowing more experienced junior servicemembers to
live off base with a housing allowance could reduce barracks
requirements and future construction, operations, and maintenance
costs. Also, relying more on community housing appears to be consistent
with existing DOD family housing policy that advocates maximum use of
civilian housing before constructing and operating military-owned
housing. Further, as appropriate, a move to civilian housing could also
be viewed as an enhancement to quality of life. As far back as 1992,
personnel surveys have shown that as many as 84 percent of unmarried
junior servicemembers prefer to receive a housing allowance and live
off base.
Although reducing requirements for unaccompanied servicemembers to live
in barracks could significantly decrease planned barracks construction
costs over the next several years, this change would result in
increased annual housing allowance costs. Our tentative analyses of
five 1+1 design barracks projects in DOD‘s military construction budget
request for fiscal year 2003, however, indicate that even over the long
term--that is, a period of 30 years--paying allowances to
servicemembers could be slightly less costly than constructing,
operating, and maintaining on-base barracks, while reducing pressure on
scarce military construction funds.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
While the department updates its DOD Housing Management manual, we
recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics and the Under
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to work together to
revise the department‘s guidance regarding permanent party enlisted
servicemembers who are required to live in barracks. In doing so, we
recommend that the rationale behind the department‘s barracks policy
revision and the services‘ barracks occupancy requirements be based, at
least in part, on the results of objective, systematic analyses that
consider the contemporary needs of junior servicemembers, quality-of-
life issues, the services‘ mission requirements, and other relevant
data that would help provide a basis for the services‘ barracks
occupancy requirements. Although we recognize that military judgment
may play an important role in setting barracks requirements, we believe
that the soundness of those judgments could be validated and
unnecessary requirements mitigated if those judgments were undergirded
by objective qualitative and quantitative data where available.
Whether a ’one size fits all“ policy would be practical is not clear at
this point, but greater consistency among the services appears
warranted. Accordingly, we also recommend that the Secretary of Defense
seek to ensure greater consistency among the services in implementing
this guidance and ensuring that the basis for significant variances
includes consideration of objective data and analysis.
As you know, 31 U.S.C. 720 requires the head of a federal agency to
submit a written statement of the actions taken on our recommendations
to the Senate Committee on Government Affairs and the House Committee
on Government Reform not later than 60 days after the date of this
report. A written statement must also be sent to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations with the agency‘s first request for
appropriations made more than 60 days after the date of this report.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
The Principal Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
(Installations and Environment) provided written comments on a draft of
this report, which are reprinted in enclosure I. In commenting on the
draft, DOD agreed with our recommendation to revise the department‘s
guidance regarding permanent party enlisted service members who are
required to live in barracks. DOD indicated that actions were underway
to study the department‘s policy for assigning government quarters to
single and junior enlisted service members and to update the
department‘s barracks and family housing management guidance.
Additionally, DOD agreed, in principle, to base the department‘s
barracks policy revision and the services‘ barracks occupancy
requirements--at least in part--on the results of systematic analyses,
but left unclear the extent to which it is likely to do so. The
department noted that while a systematic analysis would help support
policy development, the relative importance of the factors used are
equally important, and not all factors can be defined in an objective
manner. The department reiterated the importance of military judgment
in such decisions considering the impact of such factors as training,
readiness, and discipline; and it cited the importance of considering
service-unique requirements that could lead to differences among the
services in how they handle this issue. While we recognize the
importance of each of these factors, we continue to believe that, given
the variations noted in our report, the services requirements
determinations should be supported with more objective analyses to the
extent practical.
The department provided additional technical comments which expressed
concern that the presentation of our tentative analysis finding that
paying housing allowances to service members could be slightly less
costly than constructing, operating, and maintaining on-base barracks
was incomplete in its treatment of costs. Specifically, it cited the
exclusion of partial basic housing allowances to barracks residents and
the payment of subsistence allowances, as well as other assumptions
made in our analysis, such as year of occupancy. We will take these
comments under consideration as we continue our analysis of this issue
along with the broader body of work we have underway examining barracks
housing issues. However, it should be noted that our preliminary
analysis assumed that design, construction, and occupancy would occur
in the first year of the projects, based on DOD‘s typical life-cycle
cost analyses used in the family housing area. Also, available data
indicate that inclusion of partial housing allowances and differences
in subsistence costs provided to on-base and off-base personnel would
not necessarily materially affect the results of our analysis. We agree
that housing cost issues for single servicemembers are worthy of
additional analyses particularly because the military services, on
their own, are exploring the potential for barracks privatization.
Scope and Methodology:
We performed our work at the Office of the Secretary of Defense and at
the Air Force, Army, Navy, and Marine Corps headquarters offices
responsible for unaccompanied housing and quality-of-life initiatives.
At each location, we interviewed responsible officials and reviewed
applicable policies, procedures, and documents. We also reviewed the
services‘ barracks improvement plans, goals, and milestones. Further,
we visited three military installations in Virginia--Fort Eustis,
Langley Air Force Base, and the Norfolk Naval Station--to view barracks
conditions and discuss barracks issues. Our review focused on housing
for unaccompanied enlisted servicemembers at their permanent duty
locations in the United States. We did not include recruit, training,
or transient barracks in our review.
To assess the consistency of and the rationale behind the services‘
barracks occupancy requirements, we reviewed and compared the services‘
barracks policies and interviewed DOD and service officials to discuss
the rationale supporting the policies. We also (1) obtained and
analyzed data to estimate possible barracks construction cost savings
if fewer servicemembers were required to live in barracks, (2) compared
the estimated life-cycle costs of five Army, Air Force, and Navy
construction projects for 1+1 design barracks in DOD‘s military
construction budget request for fiscal year 2003 with the life-cycle
costs of allowing servicemembers to live off base with a housing
allowance, (3) examined the number of single junior enlisted
servicemembers living off base in the Air Force, and (4) reviewed
quality-of-life survey data showing where unmarried members prefer to
live. Our review was conducted from May through October 2002 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
- - - --:
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional
committees, and it will be available at no charge on GAO‘s Web site at
http://www.gao.gov. We are continuing with our review of the management
of military barracks and plan to report the results early in 2003. If
you or your staff have any questions on the matters discussed in this
letter, please contact me at (202) 512-8412, or my Assistant Director,
Mark Little, at (202) 512-4673. Gary Phillips, Jim Ellis, Sharon Reid,
and R.K. Wild were major contributors to this report.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by Barry W. Holman:
Barry W. Holman, Director:
Defense Capabilities and Management:
Comments from the Department of Defense:
OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE:
3000 DEFENSE PENTAGON WASHINGTON, DC 20301-3000:
ACQUISITION, TECHNOLOGY AND LOGISTICS:
Mr. Barry W. Holman:
Director, Defense Capabilities and Management United States General
Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Holman:
This is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the GAO draft
report GAO-03-257R, ’MILITARY HOUSING: Opportunities for Reducing
Planned Military Construction Costs for Barracks,“ dated November 1,
2002 (GAO Code 350294).
The Department has reviewed the draft report and agrees, in principle,
with the recommendations. During the course of the audit, the
Directorate for Housing within the Office of the Deputy Under Secretary
of Defense (Installations and Environment) contracted with the Center
for Naval Analysis to begin a review of the DoD Housing Management
manual (DoD 4165.63-M), which includes assignment policies for both
family housing and barracks.
In response to the recommendation that the Department should use an
objective, systematic analysis in determining barracks policy and
requirements, we believe our housing requirements process fulfills this
recommendation. The housing requirements process is an analytical
approach to determine the appropriate on-base housing needed to support
our single and married military members. However, as the GAO report
correctly points out, military judgment is also an important factor in
establishing these policies. As the Department reviews its housing
assignment policies, it will work to maintain a balance between
systematic analysis using DoD-wide policies with individual Service
authority to effectively base housing assignment policies on military
judgment, mission, discipline or readiness, as expressed in Title 37,
United States Code, Section 403(e).
Finally, the draft report concludes (page 4) that ’paying allowances to
service members could be slightly less costly than constructing,
operating, and maintaining on-base barracks.“ Extracting reliable
barracks operations and maintenance (O&M) costs from the larger O&M
appropriation is extremely difficult. Further, the analysis of the five
barracks construction projects provided by the GAO in support of this
conclusion also neglects some important costs, such as Basic Allowance
for Subsistence or payment of partial Basic Allowance for Housing. As
such, we believe more work would need to be done in this area before
DoD could accept the GAO‘s conclusion.
Enclosed are the Department‘s specific and technical responses to the
recommendations. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on
the draft report. My point of contact for this action is Ms. Phyllis
Newton. She can be reached at (703) 614-5356 or at
phyllis.newton @osd.mil.
Sincerely,
Signed by Philip W. Grove:
Philip W. Grove
Principal Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
(Installations and Environment):
Enclosures:
GAO CODE 350294/GAO-03-257R:
’MILITARY HOUSING: OPPORTUNITIES FOR REDUCING PLANNED MILITARY
CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR BARRACKS“:
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE COMMENTS TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS:
RECOMMENDATION 1: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics and the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness to work together to revise the Department‘s guidance
regarding permanent party enlisted service members who are required to
live in barracks. (p. 4/Draft Report):
DoD RESPONSE: Agree. The Department has already taken steps to update
the barracks and family housing management guidance. A study has also
been initiated to review the policy for assigning government quarters
to single and married junior enlisted members. This effort is being
conducted by the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness, in coordination with the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, with Military Department input,
to ensure both the facility and compensation aspects of housing are
addressed.
RECOMMENDATION 2: The GAO recommended that the rationale behind the
Department‘s barracks policy revision and the Services‘ barracks
occupancy requirements be based, at least in part, on the results of
objective, systematic analyses that consider the contemporary needs of
junior service members, quality-of-life issues, the Services; mission
requirements, and other relevant data that would help provide a basis
for the Services‘ barracks occupancy requirements. (p. 4/Draft Report):
DoD RESPONSE: Agree, in principle. While a systematic analysis using
such factors as those identified in the recommendation would help
support policy development, the relative importance of the factors used
are equally important. As such, not all factors can be defined in an
objective manner. Commander and senior enlisted decisions that may be
based on subjective measures play an important role, as recognized in
this report.
(350294):
FOOTNOTES
[1] In November 1995, DOD adopted a new barracks construction standard,
referred to as the 1+1 design standard, for servicemembers permanently
assigned to an installation. The 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
with a kitchenette and bath shared by one other member. The Marine
Corps has 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.
[2] U.S. Department of Defense, Office of the Under Secretary of
Defense (Acquisition and Technology), DOD Housing Management, 4165.63-
M (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 30, 1993).
[3] We also have seen no systematic analyses from the other services
that show any adverse impact from unaccompanied enlisted members living
off base with a housing allowance.
