Military Education
DOD Needs to Align Academy Preparatory Schools' Mission Statements with Overall Guidance and Establish Performance Goals Gao ID: GAO-03-1017 September 10, 2003Each year, the U.S. Air Force Academy, the U.S. Military Academy, and the U.S. Naval Academy combined spend tens of millions of dollars to operate preparatory schools that provide an alternative avenue for about 700 students annually to gain admission to the service academies. Service academy officials screen all applicants to identify those who they believe could succeed at the academies but who would benefit from more preparation. The Department of Defense (DOD) pays the full cost of providing this preparation. GAO was asked to review the three service academy preparatory schools, and this report specifically assesses (1) the adequacy of their current mission statements, (2) the effectiveness of these schools in accomplishing their missions, and (3) the effectiveness of DOD oversight of these schools.
The three service academy preparatory schools' current mission statements do not clearly articulate the purpose for which the schools are being used by their respective service academies. In accordance with DOD guidance and the service academies' expectations, the preparatory schools give primary consideration for enrollment to enlisted personnel, minorities, women, and recruited athletes. However, the preparatory school mission statements are not clearly aligned with DOD guidance and the academies' expectations. This is a continuing problem, which GAO first reported in 1992. Without clear mission statements, the service academies and their respective preparatory schools cannot establish goals that fully reflect the preparatory schools' intended purpose. It is difficult to evaluate how effective the preparatory schools have been in accomplishing their missions because the service academies have not established performance goals for the preparatory schools. Without specific performance goals, there is no objective yardstick against which to gauge preparatory school effectiveness, as would be consistent with the principle of best practices for ensuring optimal return on investment. The effectiveness of DOD, military service, and service academy oversight is limited because the existing oversight framework for assessing preparatory school performance does not include performance goals and measures against which to objectively assess performance. DOD and the services receive annual reports from the academies on preparatory school performance. Without stated performance goals and measures, however, the reports do not offer DOD, the services, or the service academies as good an insight into the preparatory schools' performance and their return on investment as they could.
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-03-1017, Military Education: DOD Needs to Align Academy Preparatory Schools' Mission Statements with Overall Guidance and Establish Performance Goals
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-1017
entitled 'Military Education: DOD Needs to Align Academy Preparatory
Schools' Mission Statements with Overall Guidance and Establish
Performance Goals' which was released on September 10, 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.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
On January 9, 2004, this document was revised to add various footnote
references missing in the text of the body of the document.
Report to the Subcommittee on Defense, Committee on Appropriations,
House of Representatives:
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
September 2003:
MILITARY EDUCATION:
DOD Needs to Align Academy Preparatory Schools' Mission Statements with
Overall Guidance and Establish Performance Goals:
Military Education:
GAO-03-1017:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-03-1017, a report to the Subcommittee on Defense,
Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives
Why GAO Did This Study:
Each year, the U.S. Air Force Academy, the U.S. Military Academy, and
the U.S. Naval Academy combined spend tens of millions of dollars to
operate preparatory schools that provide an alternative avenue for
about 700 students annually to gain admission to the service
academies. Service academy officials screen all applicants to identify
those who they believe could succeed at the academies but who would
benefit from more preparation. The Department of Defense (DOD) pays
the full cost of providing this preparation. GAO was asked to review
the three service academy preparatory schools, and this report
specifically assesses (1) the adequacy of their current mission
statements, (2) the effectiveness of these schools in accomplishing
their missions, and (3) the effectiveness of DOD oversight of these
schools.
What GAO Found:
The three service academy preparatory schools‘ current mission
statements do not clearly articulate the purpose for which the schools
are being used by their respective service academies. In accordance
with DOD guidance and the service academies‘ expectations, the
preparatory schools give primary consideration for enrollment to
enlisted personnel, minorities, women, and recruited athletes.
However, the preparatory school mission statements are not clearly
aligned with DOD guidance and the academies‘ expectations. This is a
continuing problem, which GAO first reported in 1992. Without clear
mission statements, the service academies and their respective
preparatory schools cannot establish goals that fully reflect the
preparatory schools‘ intended purpose.
It is difficult to evaluate how effective the preparatory schools have
been in accomplishing their missions because the service academies
have not established performance goals for the preparatory schools.
Without specific performance goals, there is no objective yardstick
against which to gauge preparatory school effectiveness, as would be
consistent with the principle of best practices for ensuring optimal
return on investment.
The effectiveness of DOD, military service, and service academy
oversight is limited because the existing oversight framework for
assessing preparatory school performance does not include performance
goals and measures against which to objectively assess performance.
DOD and the services receive annual reports from the academies on
preparatory school performance. Without stated performance goals and
measures, however, the reports do not offer DOD, the services, or the
service academies as good an insight into the preparatory schools‘
performance and their return on investment as they could.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense direct DOD, in concert
with the services and the service academies, to align the preparatory
schools‘ mission statements with DOD guidance and the academies‘
expectations; establish quantified performance goals and measures for
the schools; and enhance the existing oversight framework for
assessing the schools‘ performance. In commenting on a draft of this
report, DOD agreed with the recommendations.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-1017.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click
on the link above. For more information, contact Derek B. Stewart at
(202) 512-5559 or stewartd@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Preparatory School Missions Are Not Clearly Defined:
Preparatory Schools Maintain Performance Data, but Mission
Effectiveness Is Difficult to Evaluate:
DOD Lacks a Complete Framework to Facilitate More Effective Oversight
of the Preparatory Schools:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: General Information about the Three Service Academy
Preparatory Schools:
Appendix III: Preparatory School Enrollment:
Appendix IV: Students Who Entered the Preparatory Schools and Graduated
from or Are Still Attending the Academies:
Appendix V: Students Who Entered the Preparatory Schools and Graduated
from the Preparatory Schools:
Appendix VI: Students Who Graduated from the Preparatory Schools and
Accepted Appointments to the Academies:
Appendix VII: Academy Graduation Rates for Preparatory School Graduates
Versus Direct Appointees:
Appendix VIII: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Appendix IX: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Demographics for Preparatory Schools, Class of 2002:
Table 2: Service Academy Preparatory School Operating Costs and Cost
per Graduate, Fiscal Years 1999-2002:
Table 3: Preparatory School Mission Statements:
Figures:
Figure 1: Service Academies' Preparatory School Locations:
Figure 2: Average Preparatory School Enrollment, by Target Group, for
Preparatory School Academic Years 1993 through 2002:
Figure 3: Average Service Academy Target Group Enrollment, by Academy
Preparatory School, for Preparatory School Academic Years 1993 through
2002:
Figure 4: Average Number of Students Admitted to the Preparatory
Schools and Graduating from or Still Attending an Academy for
Preparatory School Academic Years 1993 through 2002:
Figure 5: Comparison between Academy Grade Point Averages of
Preparatory School Graduates and of Academy Student Bodies as a Whole
for the Academy Class of 2002:
Figure 6: Comparison between Average Academy Graduation Rates of
Preparatory School Graduates and of Direct Appointees for Preparatory
School Academic Years 1993 through 1998:
Figure 7: Percentage of Total Enrollment, by Target Groups, at the U.S.
Air Force Academy Preparatory School for Preparatory School Academic
Years 1993 through 2002:
Figure 8: Percentage of Total Enrollment, by Target Groups, at the U.S.
Military Academy Preparatory School for Preparatory School Academic
Years 1993 through 2002:
Figure 9: Percentage of Total Enrollment, by Target Groups, at the U.S.
Naval Academy Preparatory School for Preparatory School Academic Years
1993 through 2002:
Figure 10: Percentage of Total U.S. Air Force Academy Preparatory
School Enrollment Graduating from or Still Attending the U.S. Air Force
Academy for Preparatory School Academic Years 1993 through 2002:
Figure 11: Percentage of Four Target Groups Entering the U.S. Air Force
Academy Preparatory School and Graduating from or Still Attending the
U.S. Air Force Academy for Preparatory School Academic Years 1993
through 2002:
Figure 12: Percentage of Total U.S. Military Academy Preparatory School
Enrollment Graduating from or Still Attending the U.S. Military Academy
for Preparatory School Academic Years 1993 through 2002:
Figure 13: Percentage of Four Target Groups Entering the U.S. Military
Academy Preparatory School and Graduating from or Still Attending the
U.S. Military Academy for Preparatory School Academic Years 1993
through 2002:
Figure 14: Percentage of Total U.S. Naval Academy Preparatory School
Enrollment Graduating from or Still Attending the U.S. Naval Academy
for Preparatory School Academic Years 1993 through 2002:
Figure 15: Percentage of Four Target Groups Entering the U.S. Naval
Academy Preparatory School and Graduating from or Still Attending the
U.S. Naval Academy for Preparatory School Academic Years 1993 through
2002:
Figure 16: Percentage of Students Graduating from the U.S. Air Force
Academy Preparatory School for Preparatory School Academic Years 1993
through 2002:
Figure 17: Percentage of Four Target Groups Graduating from the U.S.
Air Force Academy Preparatory School for Preparatory School Academic
Years 1993 through 2002:
Figure 18: Percentage of Students Graduating from the U.S. Military
Academy Preparatory School for Preparatory School Academic Years 1993
through 2002:
Figure 19: Percentage of Four Target Groups Graduating from the U.S.
Military Academy Preparatory School for Preparatory School Academic
Years 1993 through 2002:
Figure 20: Percentage of Students Graduating from the U.S. Naval
Academy Preparatory School for Preparatory School Academic Years 1993
through 2002:
Figure 21: Percentage of Four Target Groups Graduating from the U.S.
Naval Academy Preparatory School for Preparatory School Academic Years
1993 through 2002:
Figure 22: Percentage of U.S. Air Force Academy Preparatory School
Graduates Accepting U.S. Air Force Academy Appointments for Preparatory
School Academic Years 1993 through 2002:
Figure 23: Percentage of Four Target Groups of U.S. Air Force Academy
Preparatory School Graduates Accepting U.S. Air Force Academy
Appointments for Preparatory School Academic Years 1993 through 2002:
Figure 24: Percentage of U.S. Military Academy Preparatory School
Graduates Accepting U.S. Military Academy Appointments for Preparatory
School Academic Years 1993 through 2002:
Figure 25: Percentage of Four Target Groups of U.S. Military Academy
Preparatory School Graduates Accepting U.S. Military Academy
Appointments for Preparatory School Academic Years 1993 through 2002:
Figure 26: Percentage of U.S. Naval Academy Preparatory School
Graduates Accepting U.S. Naval Academy Appointments for Preparatory
School Academic Years 1993 through 2002:
Figure 27: Percentage of Four Target Groups of U.S. Naval Academy
Preparatory School Graduates Accepting U.S. Naval Academy Appointments
for Preparatory School Academic Years 1993 through 2002:
Figure 28: Comparative U.S. Air Force Academy Graduation Rates for
Preparatory School Academic Years 1993 through 1998:
Figure 29: Comparative U.S. Military Academy Graduation Rates for
Preparatory School Academic Years 1993 through 1998:
Figure 30: Comparative U.S. Naval Academy Graduation Rates for
Preparatory School Academic Years 1993 through 1998:
Abbreviations:
DOD: Department of Defense:
GAO: General Accounting Office:
OUSD/P&R: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness:
United States General Accounting Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
September 10, 2003:
The Honorable Jerry Lewis
Chairman
The Honorable John P. Murtha
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Defense
Committee on Appropriations
House of Representatives:
The U.S. Air Force Academy, the U.S. Military Academy, and the U.S.
Naval Academy combined spend tens of millions of dollars each year to
operate service academy preparatory schools, preparing about 700
students for admission to the service academies. The service academies
are one of several sources of newly commissioned officers, and they are
solely responsible for sending students to the academy preparatory
schools. The service academies receive more than 10,000 applications
each year. Academy admissions officials screen all applicants and
identify those who they believe could succeed at the academies but who
would benefit from more preparation. The preparatory schools provide an
alternative avenue for these applicants to gain admission to the
academies. The Department of Defense (DOD) pays the full cost of
providing academic preparation, military orientation, and physical
conditioning. In fiscal year 2002, DOD reported that costs per graduate
for the U.S. Air Force Academy Preparatory School, the U.S. Military
Academy Preparatory School, and the U.S. Naval Academy Preparatory
School were $30,842, $41,859, and $40,850, respectively.
The House report on defense appropriations for fiscal year 2003
directed that we review the three service academies and their
preparatory schools.[Footnote 1] As part of our review of the service
academies, we reviewed DOD oversight and admissions issues at all three
service academies. We also surveyed all students and faculty at the
three academies to obtain their perceptions of various aspects of
student life at the academies. Based on our review of the service
academies, we recommended that the Secretary of Defense, in concert
with the services, enhance performance goals and measures to improve
oversight of the academies' operations and performance. These issues
are addressed in separate reports.[Footnote 2] This report addresses
our review of all three service academy preparatory schools. As agreed
with your offices, we assessed (1) the adequacy of the current mission
statements of the preparatory schools, (2) the effectiveness of the
preparatory schools in accomplishing their missions, and (3) the
effectiveness of DOD oversight of the preparatory schools.
In addition to interviewing officials at all three preparatory schools,
the academies, the service headquarters, and DOD's Office of the Under
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (OUSD/P&R), we
reviewed the adequacy of the preparatory schools' mission statements
and pertinent DOD guidance. To assess the effectiveness of the
preparatory schools in accomplishing their missions, we analyzed
aggregate preparatory school performance data for preparatory school
academic years 1993 through 2002 for four target groups of students
common to all preparatory schools: (1) enlisted personnel, (2)
minorities, (3) recruited athletes, and (4) women. Our analysis
included preparatory school admissions and graduation data for each
target group. We also reviewed DOD guidance on oversight roles,
responsibilities, and reporting requirements, as well as academy
regulations and instructions. We conducted our review between February
and July 2003. Further details on our scope and methodology are in
appendix I.
Results in Brief:
The three preparatory schools' current mission statements do not
clearly articulate the purpose for which the schools are being used by
their respective service academies. This lack of clarity in mission
statements is a continuing problem, which we first reported on in
1992.[Footnote 3] Although the three preparatory schools exist to help
the service academies meet their diversity needs,[Footnote 4] their
mission statements simply refer to preparing "selected personnel who
meet special needs," "selected candidates," or "candidates" for
admission to and success at the service academies. These mission
statements are not clearly aligned with DOD guidance, which states that
primary consideration for preparatory school enrollment shall be
accorded to nominees to fill officer objectives for three target
groups: (1) enlisted personnel, (2) minorities, and (3) women.[Footnote
5] Senior service academy officials told us that their expectations of
the preparatory schools to provide students in these three groups are
consistent with DOD guidance, and that they also rely on the
preparatory schools to meet their needs for a fourth group--recruited
athletes. Without clear mission statements, the service academies and
their respective preparatory schools cannot establish performance goals
that fully reflect the preparatory schools' intended purpose.
It is difficult to evaluate how effective the preparatory schools have
been in accomplishing their missions because the service academies have
not established performance goals for their preparatory schools. The
preparatory schools collect a substantial amount of performance data
for the four target groups. However, without specific performance
goals, the service academies do not have an objective yardstick against
which to gauge preparatory school effectiveness, as would be consistent
with the principle of best practices for ensuring optimal return on
investment.
The effectiveness of DOD, military service, and service academy
oversight is limited because the existing oversight framework for
assessing preparatory school performance does not include performance
goals and measures. DOD, the services, and the service academies
largely conduct oversight activities without the benefit of quantified
performance goals and measures to assess how well the preparatory
schools are preparing targeted groups of students for admission to and
success at the service academies. DOD and the services receive annual
reports from the academies--which have direct oversight responsibility
for the preparatory schools--on preparatory school performance. While
the data within these reports provide perspective on current
performance compared with past performance, without stated performance
goals and measures, these data do not offer DOD, the services, or the
service academies as good an insight into the preparatory schools'
performance and return on investment as they could. For example, the
data reported by the preparatory schools show that fewer than 60
percent of the students who were admitted to the preparatory schools
during the past 10 years graduated from or are still attending the
academies; however, there is no stated goal for graduation rates
against which to assess this rate. Other data reported by the
preparatory schools show that the percentage of students in the target
groups admitted to the preparatory schools has varied over the past 10
years; however, there are no stated goals against which to measure the
adequacy of these admission trends.
This report contains recommendations that DOD, in concert with the
service headquarters and service academies, clarify the preparatory
schools' mission statements by aligning these statements with the
department's directive and the service academies' expectations that
target student groups for primary enrollment consideration; establish
quantified performance goals and measures, linked with the schools'
mission statements; and enhance the existing oversight framework by
using quantified performance goals and measures to objectively evaluate
the performance of the preparatory schools. In commenting on a draft of
this report, DOD concurred with our recommendations.
Background:
Each service academy operates its own preparatory school. The U.S. Air
Force Academy Preparatory School is co-located with the U.S. Air Force
Academy in Colorado Springs, Colorado. The U.S. Military Academy
Preparatory School is located at Fort Monmouth, New Jersey, and the
U.S. Naval Academy Preparatory School is located in Newport, Rhode
Island. [Footnote 6] (See fig 1.):
Figure 1: Service Academies' Preparatory School Locations:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
During World War I, the Secretaries of the Army and the Navy nominated
enlisted personnel to their respective service academies. Many of the
first enlisted personnel did poorly on service academy entrance
examinations, and many of the slots that were created for them went
unfilled. To coach enlisted nominees for service academy entrance
examinations, Army and Navy officials formally established the Military
Academy and Naval Academy preparatory schools in 1946 and 1920,
respectively. (The U.S. Air Force Academy was created in 1954, and its
preparatory school in 1961.) The preparatory schools have evolved over
the years and become more diverse. Today, the student bodies of these
schools consist of enlisted personnel, minorities, recruited athletes,
and women (see table 1).
Table 1: Demographics for Preparatory Schools, Class of 2002:
Total enrollment; U.S. Air Force Academy Preparatory School: 225; U.S.
Military Academy Preparatory School: 227; U.S. Naval Academy
Preparatory School: 315.
Enlisted personnel; U.S. Air Force Academy Preparatory School: 43; U.S.
Military Academy Preparatory School: 56; U.S. Naval Academy Preparatory
School: 96.
Minorities; U.S. Air Force Academy Preparatory School: 111; U.S.
Military Academy Preparatory School: 104; U.S. Naval Academy
Preparatory School: 173.
Recruited athletes; U.S. Air Force Academy Preparatory School: 90; U.S.
Military Academy Preparatory School: 59; U.S. Naval Academy Preparatory
School: 87.
Women; U.S. Air Force Academy Preparatory School: 40; U.S. Military
Academy Preparatory School: 41; U.S. Naval Academy Preparatory School:
47.
Source: GAO analysis of DOD data.
Notes: The population target groups are not mutually exclusive.
Therefore, the sum of enrollment figures provided by target group will
be greater than the total enrollment figure provided for each
preparatory school.
Preparatory school classes of 2002 should graduate from the academies
in 2006.
[End of table]
To be admitted to a preparatory school, an applicant must meet basic
eligibility requirements. Because applicants to the academies must (1)
be unmarried, (2) be a U.S. citizen, (3) be at least 17 years of age
and must not have passed their twenty-third birthday on July 1 of the
year they enter an academy, (4) have no dependents, and (5) be of good
moral character, the preparatory schools apply the same
requirements.[Footnote 7]
The preparatory schools do not charge for tuition. The enlisted
personnel who are selected to attend the preparatory schools are
reassigned to the preparatory schools as their duty stations, and these
enlisted personnel continue to be paid at the grades they earned before
enrolling. Civilians who are selected to attend the preparatory schools
enlist in the reserves and are paid about $700 per month. Enlisted
personnel must complete their military obligations if they do not
complete the programs or go on to one of the academies. Civilian
students do not incur any financial or further military obligation if
they do not complete the programs or go on to one of the academies.
However, they also do not accrue any transferable college credits while
attending the preparatory schools.
The preparatory schools offer a 10-month course of instruction that
combines academic instruction, physical conditioning, and an
orientation to military life. The daily schedule includes several hours
of classroom instruction, mandatory study time, and extra instruction;
time for athletics or physical training; and some instruction in
military customs and practices. Emphasis is placed on giving each
candidate as much tutorial assistance as is necessary to maximize the
individual's potential for success. The student body at each school is
organized into a military unit with a student chain of command that is
advised by commissioned and noncommissioned officers. This structure is
intended to provide the students with exposure to military discipline
and order.
In fiscal year 2002, DOD reported that the total cost to operate all
three preparatory schools was about $22 million (see table 2). We did
not independently verify or evaluate these costs.
Table 2: Service Academy Preparatory School Operating Costs and Cost
per Graduate, Fiscal Years 1999-2002:
Academy preparatory school: U.S. Air Force Academy Preparatory School;
Cost category: Total operating costs; FY 1999: $6,381,169; FY 2000:
$5,385,619; FY 2001: $5,628,625; FY 2002: $5,459,059.
Cost category: Cost per graduate; FY 1999: 36,673; FY 2000: 32,057; FY
2001: 30,425; FY 2002: 30,842.
Academy preparatory school: U.S. Military Academy Preparatory School;
Cost category: Total operating costs; FY 1999: 6,544,277; FY 2000:
6,993,648; FY 2001: 7,087,020; FY 2002: 7,325,311.
Cost category: Cost per graduate; FY 1999: 34,263; FY 2000: 35,144; FY
2001: 38,727; FY 2002: 41,859.
Academy preparatory school: U.S. Naval Academy Preparatory School;
Cost category: Total operating costs; FY 1999: 7,212,997; FY 2000:
8,136,649; FY 2001: 8,549,809; FY 2002: 9,395,421.
Cost category: Cost per graduate; FY 1999: 35,015; FY 2000: 43,982; FY
2001: 42,117; FY 2002: 40,850.
Source: DOD.
[End of table]
OUSD/P&R, the service headquarters, and the service academies have
established clear roles and responsibilities for oversight of the
preparatory schools. According to DOD Directive 1322.22 (Service
Academies), the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness
has responsibility to assess the operations and establish policy and
guidance for uniform oversight and management of the service academies
and their preparatory schools.[Footnote 8] The service headquarters
perform their oversight over their respective academies and preparatory
schools in accordance with the directive. The superintendent of each
academy reports directly to the uniformed head of his respective
service (the Chiefs of Staff for the Army and the Air Force and the
Chief of Naval Operations for the Navy), in accordance with the chain
of command for each service. The academies perform the primary DOD
oversight function for their respective preparatory schools. The
commanding officers at the Air Force and Army preparatory schools hold
the rank of colonel, and the head of the Navy's preparatory school
holds the equivalent rank of captain. They report directly to the
superintendent of their respective service academies, in accordance
with the chain of command for each service.
Appendix II provides general information about the three service
academy preparatory schools.
Preparatory School Missions Are Not Clearly Defined:
The three preparatory schools' current mission statements do not
clearly define the purpose for which the schools are being used by
their respective service academies. Mission statements should define an
organization's purpose in language that states desired outcomes.
Mission statements also bring the organization's vision into focus,
explain why it exists, and tell what it does. Without a clear mission
statement, the organization cannot establish goals that fully reflect
the organization's intended purpose.
Although the preparatory schools exist to help the service academies
meet their diversity needs, the schools' mission statements simply
refer to preparing "selected personnel who meet special needs,"
"selected candidates," or "candidates" for admission to and success at
the service academies. These mission statements are not clearly aligned
with DOD guidance,[Footnote 9] which states that primary consideration
for enrollment shall be accorded to nominees to fill officer objectives
for three target groups: (1) enlisted personnel, (2) minorities, and
(3) women. Senior academy officials told us that their expectations of
the preparatory schools are consistent with DOD guidance on enrollment
objectives and that they also rely on the preparatory schools to meet
their needs for a fourth group--recruited athletes--adding that the
service academies would not be able to meet their diversity needs if
the preparatory schools did not exist. However, neither DOD nor the
service academies have required the preparatory schools to align their
mission statements to reflect DOD's guidance and the service academies'
expectations. As a result, none of the mission statements are explicit
about the preparatory schools' intended purpose. Table 3 presents more
detailed information on the preparatory schools' mission statements.
Table 3: Preparatory School Mission Statements:
Service academy preparatory school: Air Force; Mission statement: To
prepare, motivate, and evaluate for admission to and success at the Air
Force Academy selected personnel who meet the special needs of the Air
Force.
Service academy preparatory school: Army; Mission statement: To provide
academic, military, and physical instruction in a moral-ethical
military environment to prepare and motivate candidates for success at
the U.S. Military Academy.
Service academy preparatory school: Navy; Mission statement: To prepare
selected candidates morally, mentally, and physically, with emphasis on
strengthening the academic foundation of individual candidates for
officer accession through the U.S. Naval, Coast Guard, and Merchant
Marine Academies.
Source: Service academy preparatory schools.
[End of table]
Even though the mission statements are not explicit about the schools'
intended purpose, data on the number of students belonging to target
groups who enter the preparatory schools and then enter the service
academies indicate that, in practice, the schools are giving primary
consideration for enrollment to those target groups identified by the
DOD directive and the service academies--namely, enlisted personnel,
minorities, recruited athletes, and women--and are primarily preparing
those student groups for admission to the service academies.
Preparatory school and service academy admissions data over a 10-year
period indicate that the preparatory schools are a source for the
academies of target groups--enlisted personnel, minorities, recruited
athletes, and women--identified by DOD guidance and service academy
officials. Average admissions data on the representation of targeted
groups in the preparatory schools for preparatory school academic years
1993 through 2002 are shown in figure 2. (Appendix III contains
detailed enrollment figures, by target group, for each of the
preparatory schools.) Figure 3 shows the average percentage of each
targeted group enrolled at the service academies that came from the
preparatory schools for the same time period.
Figure 2: Average Preparatory School Enrollment, by Target Group, for
Preparatory School Academic Years 1993 through 2002:
[See PDF for image]
Note: The population target groups are not mutually exclusive.
Therefore, percentages may total more than 100.
[End of figure]
Figure 3: Average Service Academy Target Group Enrollment, by Academy
Preparatory School, for Preparatory School Academic Years 1993 through
2002:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
We first identified this lack of clarity in mission statements in our
1992 report on the preparatory schools. In the 1992 report, we
concluded that the preparatory schools' missions were not clearly
defined and that the preparatory schools appeared to be pursuing
somewhat differing goals for the target groups of enlisted personnel,
minorities, recruited athletes, and women--the primary groups the
schools served at that time. We recommended that the Secretary of
Defense determine what role the preparatory schools should play among
the services' officer production programs and direct the services to
clarify their school missions accordingly. To address this lack of
clarity, DOD indicated that it planned to work with the services to
develop a consistent mission statement for these schools that would be
approved by May 1992. As discussed previously, however, the preparatory
schools' current mission statements still do not clearly define the
purpose for which the schools are being used by their respective
service academies.
Preparatory Schools Maintain Performance Data, but Mission
Effectiveness Is Difficult to Evaluate:
It is difficult to evaluate how effective the preparatory schools have
been in accomplishing their missions because the service academies have
not established performance goals for their preparatory schools. The
service academies rely on the preparatory schools to meet their
targeted needs for enlisted personnel, minorities, recruited athletes,
and women. The preparatory schools collect a substantial amount of
performance data for these targeted groups. However, without mission-
linked performance goals and measures, the service academies cannot
objectively and formally assess these data to determine mission
effectiveness. Without specific performance goals, there is no
objective yardstick against which to gauge preparatory school
effectiveness, as would be consistent with the principle of best
practices for ensuring optimal return on investment.
With performance goals against which to compare actual performance, an
organization can gauge how effectively it is meeting its mission. To
assess effectiveness in achieving its mission, an organization should:
* establish performance goals to define the level of performance to be
achieved by a program;
* express such goals in an objective, quantifiable, and measurable
form;
* provide a basis to compare actual program results with performance
goals; and:
* report assessment results, including actions needed to achieve unmet
goals or make programs minimally effective.
Preparatory Schools Collect Performance Data:
The preparatory schools collect performance data, such as the number of
students admitted to the schools, the types of students (enlisted
personnel, minorities, recruited athletes, and women) admitted, and the
number who entered and graduated from the academies. These descriptive
data show, among other things, that during the past 10 years, an
average of 76 percent of students enrolled at the preparatory schools
graduated from them. Data for this same 10-year period show that a
smaller percentage of all students admitted to the preparatory schools
graduated from or are still attending the academies. For example, 51
percent of students who were admitted to the Air Force Academy
preparatory school, 56 percent of students admitted to the Military
Academy preparatory school, and 59 percent of students admitted to the
Naval Academy preparatory school graduated from or are still attending
their respective academies. Senior officials at the preparatory schools
and academies stated that they are satisfied with these results.
Figure 4 shows the average number of students who entered the
preparatory schools, graduated from the preparatory schools, entered
the academies, and graduated from or are still attending the academies
for preparatory school academic years 1993 through 2002.
Figure 4: Average Number of Students Admitted to the Preparatory
Schools and Graduating from or Still Attending an Academy for
Preparatory School Academic Years 1993 through 2002:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Preparatory school students who entered the academies after 1998
were still attending the academies at the time of this review.
[End of figure]
Appendix IV provides more detailed information, for class totals and by
target groups, on the percentage of students who entered the
preparatory schools and graduated from or are still attending the
academies between preparatory school academic years 1993 and 2002.
Appendix V provides more detailed information, for class totals and
target groups, on the percentage of students who graduated from the
preparatory schools for that same time period. Appendix VI provides
more detailed information, for class totals and by target groups, on
the percentage of preparatory school graduates who accepted
appointments to the academies.
Service Academies Have Not Established Performance Goals:
The service academies have not established quantified performance goals
for their preparatory schools. However, they do have implicit
expectations. Senior officials at both the preparatory schools and the
academies told us that the preparatory schools are expected to enable
preparatory school students to (1) meet the service academies' academic
standards and (2) graduate from the service academies at rates
comparable to the rates of students who received direct appointments to
the service academies.
A 2.0 grade point average is the minimum level of academic performance
accepted at the academies. Our analysis of academy data for the
graduating class of 2002 shows that preparatory school graduates, as a
group, exceeded the 2.0 grade point average but had slightly lower
cumulative grade point averages than did the student body as a
whole.[Footnote 10] Figure 5 shows the cumulative grade point averages
for preparatory school graduates and service academy student bodies as
a whole for the class of 2002.
Figure 5: Comparison between Academy Grade Point Averages of
Preparatory School Graduates and of Academy Student Bodies as a Whole
for the Academy Class of 2002:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
For preparatory school academic years 1993 through 1998, an average of
73 percent of preparatory school graduates who accepted appointments to
the academies graduated from the service academies, while the average
rate was 78 percent of students directly admitted to the academies for
the same years.[Footnote 11] Thus, graduation rates for preparatory
school graduates were slightly lower than the rates for students
directly admitted to the service academies. The academies, however, do
not have a performance target for graduation rates for preparatory
school graduates, and therefore these rates do not necessarily
represent the achievement of a desired outcome. Figure 6 shows the
average percentage of preparatory school students who graduated from
the academies and the average percentage of directly appointed students
who graduated from the academies for preparatory school academic years
1993 through 1998. Appendix VII provides more detailed information for
comparative graduation rates for preparatory school academic years 1993
through 1998 for each preparatory school.
Figure 6: Comparison between Average Academy Graduation Rates of
Preparatory School Graduates and of Direct Appointees for Preparatory
School Academic Years 1993 through 1998:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
We first found that DOD had not established specific performance goals
for the preparatory schools in our 1992 review on the service academy
preparatory schools. In that report, we concluded that without such
goals, DOD lacked the tools it needed to determine whether the schools
were effective. DOD still has not required the academies to establish
quantified performance goals that are clearly linked with the mission
of the schools.
DOD Lacks a Complete Framework to Facilitate More Effective Oversight
of the Preparatory Schools:
The effectiveness of DOD, military service, and service academy
oversight is limited because the existing oversight framework for
assessing preparatory school performance does not include, among other
things, performance goals and mission statements--as discussed in
previous sections of this report--and objective measures against which
to assess performance. An effective oversight framework includes
tracking achievements in comparison with plans, goals, and objectives
and analyzing the differences between actual performance and planned
results. The interrelationship of these elements is essential for
accountability and proper stewardship of government resources, and for
achieving effective and efficient program results. Without formal goals
and measures that are, moreover, linked to mission statements,
oversight bodies do not have sufficient focus for their activities and
cannot systematically assess an organization's strengths and weaknesses
or identify appropriate remedies to achieve the best value for the
investment in the organization.
OUSD/P&R, the services, and the service academies have established
mechanisms to conduct oversight of the preparatory schools through DOD
guidance established in 1994.[Footnote 12] OUSD/P&R is required to
assess and monitor the preparatory schools' operations based on the
information provided in the annual reports it requires from the service
secretaries.[Footnote 13] The service headquarters are responsible for
oversight for their respective academies and preparatory schools, and
they oversee the schools' operations through the annual preparatory
school reports that they submit to OUSD/P&R. These reports contain data
on various aspects of preparatory school performance, such as student
demographic trends, admissions trends, and attrition.
The service academies exercise direct oversight of their respective
preparatory schools and monitor the schools' performance through
ongoing collection of data required by OUSD/P&R. For example, each of
the service academies collects preparatory school data such as the
number of students admitted to the schools, the types of students
(enlisted personnel, minorities, recruited athletes, and women)
admitted, and the number who entered and graduated from the academies.
DOD, the service headquarters, and the service academies, through these
annual assessment reports, are able to compare aspects of preparatory
school performance against prior period results. For example, service
academy data show that over the past 10 years, 51 percent of students
who were admitted to the Air Force Preparatory School, 56 percent of
students admitted to the Military Academy Preparatory School, and 59
percent of students admitted to the Naval Academy Preparatory School
graduated from or are still attending their respective academies. Other
data reported by the preparatory schools show that the percentage of
students in the target groups admitted to the schools has varied over
the past 10 years. However, as mentioned in previous sections of this
report, the preparatory schools lack quantified performance goals that
are linked to clear mission statements. Without goals linked to clear
mission statements, DOD, the service headquarters, and the service
academies do not have an objective basis by which to judge the
effectiveness of the preparatory schools' performance of their
missions.
Conclusions:
Although the service academy preparatory schools receive oversight from
a number of organizations, they lack clear mission statements and
quantified performance goals and measures. Thus, there is no objective
yardstick against which to gauge preparatory school performance,
consistent with the principle of best practices for ensuring optimal
return on investment. This conclusion reiterates our 1992 report's
finding that the preparatory schools lacked clear mission statements
and that DOD lacked the tools necessary to determine whether the
schools were effective.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
We recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Under Secretary
of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, in concert with the service
headquarters and service academies, to:
* clarify the preparatory schools' mission statements by aligning these
statements with the department's guidance and the academies'
expectations, which target student groups for primary enrollment
consideration;
* establish quantified performance goals and measures, linked with the
schools' mission statements; and:
* enhance the existing oversight framework by using quantified
performance goals and measures to objectively evaluate the performance
of the preparatory schools.
Agency Comments:
In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD concurred with our
recommendations and indicated that the mission statements of the
preparatory schools will be aligned with DOD guidance and service
expectations and that quantitative goals will be established to create
effective measures and appropriate standards for success. DOD added
that the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness will review and analyze these statistics over time to ensure
the successful performance of the preparatory schools. DOD's comments
are reprinted in their entirety in appendix VIII.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional
committees; the Secretaries of Defense, the Army, the Navy, and the Air
Force; and the Director, Office of Management and Budget. We will also
make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report
will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://
www.gao.gov.
Please contact me on (202) 512-5559 if you or your staff have any
questions concerning this report. Key contributors are listed in
appendix IX.
Derek B. Stewart
Director
Defense Capabilities and Management:
Signed by Derek B. Stewart:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
To assess the adequacy of the mission statements of the preparatory
schools, we interviewed officials at the following locations: the
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness,
Washington, D.C.; the U.S. Air Force Academy, Washington Liaison
Office, Washington, D.C.; Headquarters, Department of the Army,
Personnel, Washington, D.C.; Headquarters, Department of the Navy,
Office of Plans and Policy, Washington, D.C.; the U.S. Air Force
Academy, Colorado Springs, Colorado; the U.S. Military Academy, West
Point, New York.; the U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland; the U.S.
Air Force Academy Preparatory School, Colorado Springs, Colorado; the
U.S. Military Academy Preparatory School, Fort Monmouth, New Jersey;
and the U.S. Naval Academy Preparatory School, Newport, Rhode Island.
We obtained and reviewed Department of Defense (DOD), service, service
academy, and academy preparatory school guidance, service academy
strategic plans and instructions, and preparatory school annual reports
on operations and performance. Using data provided to us by the
preparatory schools, we analyzed aggregate data for preparatory school
academic years 1993 through 2002, by class totals and by four groups of
students--enlisted personnel, minorities, recruited athletes, and
women--to ascertain the extent to which these four groups of students
were being admitted to the preparatory schools; at what rates these
four groups of students graduated from the preparatory schools and
accepted appointments to the academies; and how well these four groups
fared at the academies in comparison with their nonpreparatory school
peers. We also reviewed relevant studies on the preparatory schools
conducted by internal and external sources.
To evaluate the effectiveness of the preparatory schools in
accomplishing their missions, we held discussions with senior service
academy and preparatory school officials to determine what results they
expected the preparatory schools to achieve, and we obtained their
assessments of the schools' effectiveness. We reviewed and analyzed
aggregate preparatory school performance data for preparatory school
academic years 1993 through 2002. We reviewed and analyzed the
preparatory schools' annual assessment reports, as well as other
relevant data gathered from the academies and the preparatory schools.
For class totals and for the four target groups of students at each of
the preparatory schools, we analyzed:
* the number and percentage of preparatory school students who entered
and graduated from a preparatory school;
* the number and percentage of preparatory school graduates who
accepted an appointment to an academy;
* the number and percentage of preparatory school graduates who
accepted an appointment to an academy and then graduated from or are
still attending an academy; and:
* the number and percentage of the original preparatory school students
who graduated from or are still attending an academy.
We did not independently assess data reliability, but we obtained
assurances about data completeness, accuracy, and reliability from
academy officials responsible for maintaining data for each preparatory
school.
To assess the effectiveness of DOD oversight of the preparatory
schools, we reviewed DOD guidance on oversight roles, responsibilities,
and reporting requirements, as well as academy regulations and
instructions, and discussed oversight activities with DOD, service, and
service academy officials. Additionally, we reviewed criteria on the
principles of effective management, such as those found in Internal
Control Standards: Internal Control Management and Evaluation
Tool.[Footnote 14]
We conducted our review from February 2003 through July 2003 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: General Information about the Three Service Academy
Preparatory Schools:
Service; U.S. Air Force Academy Preparatory School: Air Force; U.S.
Military Academy Preparatory School: Army; U.S. Naval Academy
Preparatory School: Navy, Marine Corps[A].
Location; U.S. Air Force Academy Preparatory School: Colorado Springs,
Colorado (co-located with the U.S. Air Force Academy); U.S. Military
Academy Preparatory School: Fort Monmouth, New Jersey; U.S. Naval
Academy Preparatory School: Newport, Rhode Island.
Curriculum; U.S. Air Force Academy Preparatory School: Math, English,
Chemistry; U.S. Military Academy Preparatory School: Math, English,
Success Development, Physical Education, Chemistry[B]; U.S. Naval
Academy Preparatory School: Math, English, Chemistry, Physics,
Information Technology.
Average enrollment[C]; U.S. Air Force Academy Preparatory School: 228;
U.S. Military Academy Preparatory School: 243; U.S. Naval Academy
Preparatory School: 261.
Average graduation[C]; U.S. Air Force Academy Preparatory School: 178;
U.S. Military Academy Preparatory School: 179; U.S. Naval Academy
Preparatory School: 197.
Faculty composition; U.S. Air Force Academy Preparatory School: About
35 percent civilian, 65 percent military instructors; 22 academic
billets; U.S. Military Academy Preparatory School: About 30 percent
military and 70 percent civilian instructors, 17 academic billets; U.S.
Naval Academy Preparatory School: 1:1 ratio of military to civilian
instructors, 34 academic billets.
Academic year; U.S. Air Force Academy Preparatory School: 10 months;
four-quarter program; U.S. Military Academy Preparatory School: 10
months; four-quarter program; U.S. Naval Academy Preparatory School: 10
months; three-trimester program.
Source: Military service academies.
[A] In addition to the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland, some
students attending the U.S. Naval Academy Preparatory School also go on
to attend the U.S. Coast Guard Academy in New London, Connecticut, or
the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy in Kings Point, New York.
[B] The Military Academy Preparatory School offers a voluntary
chemistry course over the summer break following graduation.
[C] Averages are based on 10 years of data covering preparatory school
academic years 1993 through 2002.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Preparatory School Enrollment:
U.S. Air Force Academy Preparatory School:
Figure 7 shows the composition of each class of Air Force Academy
Preparatory School enrollees over the past 10 years. Minorities are the
largest target group at the school, averaging 48 percent of enrollment.
The percentage of recruited athletes decreased from 1993 through 1996,
and it has remained relatively constant since then at about 40 percent
of enrollment. Enlisted personnel experienced the greatest change,
constituting 12 percent of the student body in 1993, and peaking to 28
percent in 1996. Enlisted personnel averaged 18 percent of the enrolled
class from 1993 through 2002.
Figure 7: Percentage of Total Enrollment, by Target Groups, at the U.S.
Air Force Academy Preparatory School for Preparatory School Academic
Years 1993 through 2002:
[See PDF for image]
Note: The population target groups are not mutually exclusive.
Therefore, percentages may total more than 100.
[End of figure]
U.S. Military Academy Preparatory School:
Since 1996 the percentage of enlisted personnel enrolled at the
Military Academy Preparatory School has generally declined from a high
of 54 percent in 1996 to a low of 25 percent in 2002. Concurrently, the
enrollment of minorities has fluctuated between 29 and 49 percent. (See
fig. 8.):
Figure 8: Percentage of Total Enrollment, by Target Groups, at the U.S.
Military Academy Preparatory School for Preparatory School Academic
Years 1993 through 2002:
[See PDF for image]
Note: The population target groups are not mutually exclusive.
Therefore, percentages may total more than 100.
[End of figure]
U.S. Naval Academy Preparatory School:
The composition of each class of Naval Academy Preparatory School
enrollees over the past 10 years is shown in figure 9. Minorities
constituted the largest target group, averaging 44 percent from 1993
through 2002. Enlisted personnel made up, on average, 29 percent of the
enrolled class, and recruited athletes made up, on average, 31 percent
of the class.
Figure 9: Percentage of Total Enrollment, by Target Groups, at the U.S.
Naval Academy Preparatory School for Preparatory School Academic Years
1993 through 2002:
[See PDF for image]
Note: The population target groups are not mutually exclusive.
Therefore, percentages may total more than 100.
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Students Who Entered the Preparatory Schools and Graduated
from or Are Still Attending the Academies:
U.S. Air Force Academy Preparatory School:
Figure 10 shows the percentage of all Air Force Academy Preparatory
School students who graduated from or are still attending the Air Force
Academy. From 1993 through 1998, academy graduation rates of Air Force
Preparatory School students ranged from 43 percent to 53 percent.
Figure 11 shows the same data for each of the four target groups.
Figure 10: Percentage of Total U.S. Air Force Academy Preparatory
School Enrollment Graduating from or Still Attending the U.S. Air Force
Academy for Preparatory School Academic Years 1993 through 2002:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Figure 11: Percentage of Four Target Groups Entering the U.S. Air Force
Academy Preparatory School and Graduating from or Still Attending the
U.S. Air Force Academy for Preparatory School Academic Years 1993
through 2002:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Preparatory school students who entered the academy after 1998
were still attending the academy at the time of this review.
[End of figure]
U.S. Military Academy Preparatory School:
Figure 12 shows the percentage of all Army Preparatory School students
who graduated from or are still attending the Military Academy. From
1993 through 1998, academy graduation rates of Army Preparatory School
students ranged from 46 percent to 59 percent.[Footnote 16] Figure 13
shows the same data for each of the four target groups.
Figure 12: Percentage of Total U.S. Military Academy Preparatory School
Enrollment Graduating from or Still Attending the U.S. Military Academy
for Preparatory School Academic Years 1993 through 2002:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Figure 13: Percentage of Four Target Groups Entering the U.S. Military
Academy Preparatory School and Graduating from or Still Attending the
U.S. Military Academy for Preparatory School Academic Years 1993
through 2002:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Preparatory school students who entered the academy after 1998
were still attending the academy at the time of this review.
[End of figure]
U.S. Naval Academy Preparatory School:
Figure 14 shows the percentage of all Naval Academy Preparatory School
students who graduated from or are still attending the Naval Academy.
From 1993 through 1998, academy graduation rates of Naval Academy
Preparatory School students ranged from 50 percent to 63
percent.[Footnote 17] Figure 15 shows the same data for each of the
four target groups.
Figure 14: Percentage of Total U.S. Naval Academy Preparatory School
Enrollment Graduating from or Still Attending the U.S. Naval Academy
for Preparatory School Academic Years 1993 through 2002:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Figure 15: Percentage of Four Target Groups Entering the U.S. Naval
Academy Preparatory School and Graduating from or Still Attending the
U.S. Naval Academy for Preparatory School Academic Years 1993 through
2002:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Preparatory school students who entered the academy after 1998
were still attending the academy at the time of this review.
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix V: Students Who Entered the Preparatory Schools and Graduated
from the Preparatory Schools:
U.S. Air Force Academy Preparatory School:
Figure 16 shows the graduation rates for the Air Force Academy
Preparatory School. In 2002, 79 percent of the students enrolled in the
U.S. Air Force Preparatory School graduated from the preparatory
school. The graduation rate remained relatively constant, averaging 78
percent from 1993 through 2002.
Figure 16: Percentage of Students Graduating from the U.S. Air Force
Academy Preparatory School for Preparatory School Academic Years 1993
through 2002:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Air Force preparatory school graduation rates by target group are shown
in figure 17. Recruited athletes had the lowest graduation rates,
averaging 67 percent over 10 years. Women and minorities had similar
graduation rates over 10 years, both averaging 83 percent. Enlisted
personnel had the highest graduation rate, averaging 85 percent over
the past 10 years.
Figure 17: Percentage of Four Target Groups Graduating from the U.S.
Air Force Academy Preparatory School for Preparatory School Academic
Years 1993 through 2002:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
U.S. Military Academy Preparatory School:
Figure 18 shows the trend in Army preparatory school graduation rates
over the past 10 years. In 2002, 77 percent of students in the U.S.
Military Academy Preparatory School graduated from the school. The
graduation rate increased during the past 10 years, from a low of 59
percent in 1993 to a high of 82 percent in 2000, before declining
slightly in both 2001 and 2002.
Figure 18: Percentage of Students Graduating from the U.S. Military
Academy Preparatory School for Preparatory School Academic Years 1993
through 2002:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Figure 19 shows the Army preparatory school graduation rates, by target
group, over the past 10 years. The rate for women increased--in fact
doubled--from a low of 42 percent in 1993 to a high of 84 percent in
2001. On average, minorities graduated at a higher rate--73 percent--
than did the other target groups from 1993 through 2002. Enlisted
personnel had the lowest graduation rate among the four target groups,
averaging 67 percent over 10 years.
Figure 19: Percentage of Four Target Groups Graduating from the U.S.
Military Academy Preparatory School for Preparatory School Academic
Years 1993 through 2002:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
U.S. Naval Academy Preparatory School:
Figure 20 shows the trend in overall graduation rates at the Navy
preparatory school for the past 10 years. Graduation rates at the
school generally declined until 2000, reaching a low of 68 percent in
that year. The graduation rate increased in the last 2 years, reaching
73 percent in 2002. Graduation rates averaged 75 percent over the 10
years.
Figure 20: Percentage of Students Graduating from the U.S. Naval
Academy Preparatory School for Preparatory School Academic Years 1993
through 2002:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Figure 21 shows historical trends in Navy preparatory school graduation
rates for target groups. Enlisted personnel had an average graduation
rate of 83 percent, the highest among the target groups. Women and
recruited athletes had lower graduation rates, both averaging 69
percent over 10 years. Graduation rates for minorities generally
declined after peaking at 90 percent in 1994 and averaged 73 percent
from 1993 to 2002.
Figure 21: Percentage of Four Target Groups Graduating from the U.S.
Naval Academy Preparatory School for Preparatory School Academic Years
1993 through 2002:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix VI: Students Who Graduated from the Preparatory Schools and
Accepted Appointments to the Academies:
U.S. Air Force Academy Preparatory School:
Figure 22 shows the percentage of Air Force preparatory school
graduates who accepted appointments at the Air Force Academy. This
percentage has remained relatively constant over the past 10 years. On
average, 91 percent of the graduates accepted appointments to attend
the Air Force Academy.
Figure 22: Percentage of U.S. Air Force Academy Preparatory School
Graduates Accepting U.S. Air Force Academy Appointments for Preparatory
School Academic Years 1993 through 2002:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Figure 23 shows the percentage of Air Force preparatory school students
in the four target groups-enlisted personnel, minorities, recruited
athletes, and women-who accepted an appointment to the Air Force
Academy. All four groups had similar acceptance rates of appointments
for admission. For the past 10 years, of those who graduated, an
average of 91 percent of enlisted personnel, 92 percent of minorities,
93 percent of recruited athletes, and 90 percent of women accepted an
appointment to attend the Air Force Academy.
Figure 23: Percentage of Four Target Groups of U.S. Air Force Academy
Preparatory School Graduates Accepting U.S. Air Force Academy
Appointments for Preparatory School Academic Years 1993 through 2002:
[See PDF for image]
Note: At each of the three preparatory schools, some students do not
graduate, but they may be admitted to an academy per a commanding
officer's recommendation. Therefore, some acceptance rates may exceed
100 percent.
[End of figure]
U.S. Military Academy Preparatory School:
Figure 24 shows the rate at which U.S. Military Preparatory School
students accepted appointments to attend the U.S. Military Academy.
From 1993 through 2002, 97 percent of U.S. Military Academy Preparatory
School graduates accepted appointments to attend the U.S. Military
Academy.
Figure 24: Percentage of U.S. Military Academy Preparatory School
Graduates Accepting U.S. Military Academy Appointments for Preparatory
School Academic Years 1993 through 2002:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Figure 25 shows the rate at which Army preparatory school students in
the target groups accepted appointments to attend the Military Academy.
On average, almost all students in three target groups--minorities,
recruited athletes, and women--accepted appointments into the U.S.
Military Academy from 1993 through 2002. The acceptance rate for
enlisted personnel decreased to 85 percent in 1999; however, it
increased to 128 percent in 2002.
Figure 25: Percentage of Four Target Groups of U.S. Military Academy
Preparatory School Graduates Accepting U.S. Military Academy
Appointments for Preparatory School Academic Years 1993 through 2002:
[See PDF for image]
Note: At each of the three preparatory schools, some students do not
graduate, but they may be admitted to an academy per a commanding
officer's recommendation. Therefore, some acceptance rates may exceed
100 percent.
[End of figure]
Figure 26 shows the acceptance rate, by Navy preparatory school
graduates, of appointments into the Naval Academy. Rates remained
relatively constant over 10 years, falling to a low of 87 percent in
1998 and increasing to 100 percent in 1999. On average, 97 percent of
the graduates accepted appointments to attend the U.S. Naval Academy.
Figure 26: Percentage of U.S. Naval Academy Preparatory School
Graduates Accepting U.S. Naval Academy Appointments for Preparatory
School Academic Years 1993 through 2002:
[See PDF for image]
Note: At each of the three preparatory schools, some students do not
graduate, but they may be admitted to an academy per a commanding
officer's recommendation. Therefore, some acceptance rates may exceed
100 percent.
[End of figure]
Figure 27 shows the rate at which Navy preparatory school students in
the target groups accepted appointments to attend the Naval Academy.
Women had the highest average acceptance rate among the four target
groups, averaging 100 percent over 10 years. Although acceptance rates
for enlisted personnel remained at or above 100 percent from 1999
through 2002, they had the lowest average acceptance rate, averaging 90
percent, over 10 years. On average, 99 percent of minorities and 95
percent of recruited athletes accepted nominations to attend the U.S.
Naval Academy.
Figure 27: Percentage of Four Target Groups of U.S. Naval Academy
Preparatory School Graduates Accepting U.S. Naval Academy Appointments
for Preparatory School Academic Years 1993 through 2002:
[See PDF for image]
Note: At each of the three preparatory schools, some students do not
graduate, but they may be admitted to an academy per a commanding
officer's recommendation. Therefore, some acceptance rates may exceed
100 percent.
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix VII: Academy Graduation Rates for Preparatory School
Graduates Versus Direct Appointees:
U.S. Air Force Academy:
Figure 28 shows a comparison between the Air Force Academy graduation
rates of preparatory school graduates and those of students who
accepted direct appointments to the academy. Academy graduation rates
of Air Force Academy Preparatory School graduates from 1993 through
1998 were, on average, lower than those of direct appointees.[Footnote
18] Only in 1993 was the difference in graduation rates between
preparatory school graduates and direct appointees greater than 10
percent.
Figure 28: Comparative U.S. Air Force Academy Graduation Rates for
Preparatory School Academic Years 1993 through 1998:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
U.S. Military Academy:
Figure 29 shows a comparison between the Military Academy graduation
rates of preparatory school graduates and those of students who
accepted direct appointments to the academy. Academy graduation rates
of Military Academy Preparatory School graduates from 1993 through 1998
were, on average, lower than those of direct appointees[Footnote 19].:
Figure 29: Comparative U.S. Military Academy Graduation Rates for
Preparatory School Academic Years 1993 through 1998:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
U.S. Naval Academy:
Figure 30 shows a comparison between the Naval Academy graduation rates
of preparatory school graduates and those of students who accepted
direct appointments to the academy. Academy graduation rates of Naval
Academy Preparatory School graduates from 1993 through 1998 were, on
average, lower than those of direct appointees.[Footnote 20]
Figure 30: Comparative U.S. Naval Academy Graduation Rates for
Preparatory School Academic Years 1993 through 1998:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix VIII: Comments from the Department of Defense:
OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 4000 DEFENSE PENTAGON
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20301-4000:
AUG 25 2003:
PERSONNEL AND READINESS:
Mr. Derek B. Stewart:
Director, Defense Capabilities and Management United States General
Accounting Office Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Mr. Stewart:
This is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the General
Accounting Office (GAO) draft report, GAO-03-1017, "MILITARY EDUCATION:
DoD Needs to Align Academy Preparatory Schools' Mission Statements With
Overall Guidance and Establish Performance Goals," dated August 5, 2003
(GAO Code 350312).
The Department concurs with the report's conclusion that the Office of
the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (OUSD(P&R)),
in concert with the Services, should revise the mission statements for
the Service Academy Preparatory Schools and establish performance goals
and measures subject to greater DoD oversight in order to ensure these
institutions are accomplishing their purpose.
The mission statements of the preparatory schools will be aligned with
DoD guidance and Service expectations. Establishment of quantitative
goals will follow in coordination with the Services, creating effective
measures as well as appropriate standards for success against those
measures. Finally, OUSD(P&R) will review and analyze these statistics
over time, with qualitative evaluations of officership development, to
ensure the successful performance of the preparatory schools.
The enclosure addresses the specific recommendations made by the GAO.
The Department appreciates the opportunity to comment on the draft
report.
Sincerely,
Charles S. Abell
Principal Deputy:
Signed by Charles S. Abell:
Enclosure: As stated:
GAO-03-1017/GAO CODE 350312:
"MILITARY EDUCATION: DoD Needs to Align Academy Preparatory Schools'
Mission Statements With Overall Guidance and Establish Performance
Goals":
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE COMMENTS TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS:
RECOMMENDATION 1: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, in
concert with the Service headquarters and Service academies, to clarify
the preparatory schools' mission statements by aligning these
statements with the Department's guidance and the academies'
expectations, which target student groups for primary enrollment
consideration. (Page 22/Draft Report):
DoD RESPONSE: Concur.
RECOMMENDATION 2: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, in
concert with the Service headquarters and Service academies, to
establish quantified performance goals and measures, linked with the
schools' mission statements. (Page 22/Draft Report):
DoD RESPONSE: Concur.
RECOMMENDATION 3: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, in
concert with the Service headquarters and Service academies, to enhance
the existing oversight framework by using quantified performance goals
and measures to objectively evaluate the performance of the preparatory
schools. (Page 23/Draft Report):
DoD RESPONSE: Concur. Department of Defense Directive 1322.22, Service
Academies, will be revised as required.
[End of section]
Appendix IX: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Sandra F. Bell (202) 512-8981:
Acknowledgments:
In addition to the name above, Daniel J. Byrne, Leslie M. Gregor, David
F. Keefer, Tina M. Morgan, David E. Moser, Cheryl A. Weissman, and
Susan K. Woodward made key contributions to this report.
FOOTNOTES
[1] H.R. Rept. 107-532, at 14-15 (2002).
[2] U.S. General Accounting Office, Military Education: DOD Needs to
Enhance Performance Goals and Measures to Improve Oversight of Military
Academies, GAO-03-1000 (Washington, D.C.: September 2003) and Military
Education: Student and Faculty Perceptions of Student Life at the
Military Academies, GAO-03-1001 (Washington, D.C.: September 2003).
[3] U.S. General Accounting Office, DOD Service Academies: Academy
Preparatory Schools Need a Clearer Mission and Better Oversight, GAO/
NSIAD-92-57 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 13, 1992).
[4] Preparatory school officials define the word "diversity" to be
inclusive of enlisted personnel, minorities, recruited athletes, and
women. Senior academy officials stated that they do not need to target
women for enrollment at the preparatory schools, but they continue to
do so in order to provide an environment comparable to the environment
that students will encounter at the academies.
[5] Department of Defense, Directive 1322.22, Service Academies, §
4.9.2, August 24, 1994.
[6] In addition to the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland, some
students attending the U.S. Naval Academy Preparatory School also go on
to attend the U.S. Coast Guard Academy in New London, Connecticut, or
the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy in Kings Point, New York.
[7] 10 U.S.C. §§ 4346, 6958, and 9346; and DOD Directive 1322.22 § 4.3.
[8] DOD Directive 1322.22 §§ 5.1 and 6.2.
[9] DOD Directive 1322.22 § 4.9.2.
[10]
Data refer to preparatory school graduates for class year 1998. These
students graduated from the academies in 2002.
[11] Preparatory school students who entered the academies after 1998
were still attending the academies at the time of this review.
Therefore, 1998 is the last year in which academy graduation data were
available for preparatory school students.
[12] DOD Directive 1322.22.
[13] DOD Directive 1322.22 §§ 5.1.2 and 6.2.
[14] U.S. General Accounting Office, Internal Control Standards:
Internal Control Management and Evaluation Tool, GAO-01-1008G
(Washington, D.C.: August 2001).
[15] Preparatory school students who entered the academy after 1998
were still attending the academy at the time of this review.
[16] Preparatory school students who entered the academy after 1998
were still attending the academy at the time of this review.
[17] Preparatory school students who entered the academy after 1998
were still attending the academy at the time of this review.
[18] All students who entered the academy after 1998 were still
attending the academy and had not yet graduated at the time of this
review.
[19] All students who entered the academy after 1998 were still
attending the academy and had not yet graduated at the time of this
review.
[20] All students who entered the academy after 1998 were still
attending the academy and had not yet graduated at the time of this
review.
GAO's Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress,
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office
441 G Street NW,
Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.
General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.
20548:
