Military Training
Strategic Planning and Distributive Learning Could Benefit the Special Operations Forces Foreign Language Program Gao ID: GAO-03-1026 September 30, 2003Of the 44,000 special operations forces (SOF) that perform difficult, complex, and sensitive military missions on short notice anytime and anywhere in the world, more than 12,000 (28 percent) have a foreign language requirement to operate in places where English is not spoken. In the Senate Report on the Fiscal Year 2003 National Defense Authorization Act, Congress mandated that GAO review SOF foreign language requirements and training. In this report, we (1) assess the U.S. Special Operations Command's recent actions to improve the management of the SOF foreign language program and the delivery of training, and (2) identify ways for the command to deal with ongoing challenges that limit SOF personnel's access to language-training opportunities.
Recent actions taken by the U.S. Special Operations Command are starting to address some long-standing problems with the management of the SOF foreign language program and the delivery of language training. In September 2002, the command consolidated all training under a single contractor to provide a universal, standardized curriculum and a range of delivery mechanisms for Army, Navy, and Air Force SOF components. Initial assessments suggest that the contractor's offerings are meeting contract expectations. In other actions, the program is completing an overdue assessment of SOF language requirements, developing a database of language proficiencies and training, and finding ways to take advantage of other national language-training assets. While promising, these ongoing actions are taking place without the benefit of a cohesive management framework incorporating a strategy and strategic planning to guide, integrate, and monitor its activities. Without such a framework, the program risks losing its current momentum and failing to meet new language-training needs that SOF personnel are likely to acquire as they take on expanded roles in combating terrorism and other military operations. The SOF foreign language program continues to face challenges, such as more frequent and longer deployments, that limit personnel's access to language training. Army Reserve and National Guard SOF members face additional difficulties in gaining access to centrally located training because of geographical dispersion and part-time status; they also have lower monetary incentives to acquire language proficiencies and fewer training opportunities. As a result, most SOF personnel have been unable to take needed training or required tests to qualify in their respective language(s). To address these challenges, program officials are looking into distance/distributive-learning approaches, which offer "anytime, anywhere" training that would be highly adaptable to SOF personnel needs, but they are still at an early stage in their evaluations.
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-03-1026, Military Training: Strategic Planning and Distributive Learning Could Benefit the Special Operations Forces Foreign Language Program
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-1026
entitled 'Military Training: Strategic Planning and Distributive
Learning Could Benefit the Special Operations Forces Foreign Language
Program' which was released on September 30, 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.
Report to Congressional Committees:
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
September 2003:
Military Training:
Strategic Planning and Distributive Learning Could Benefit the Special
Operations Forces Foreign Language Program:
Military Training:
GAO-03-1026:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-03-1026, a report to the Senate and House Committees
on Armed Services
Why GAO Did This Study:
Of the 44,000 special operations forces (SOF) that perform difficult,
complex, and sensitive military missions on short notice anytime and
anywhere in the world, more than 12,000 (28 percent) have a foreign
language requirement to operate in places where English is not spoken.
In the Senate Report on the Fiscal Year 2003 National Defense
Authorization Act, Congress mandated that GAO review SOF foreign
language requirements and training. In this report, we (1) assess the
U.S. Special Operations Command‘s recent actions to improve the
management of the SOF foreign language program and the delivery of
training, and (2) identify ways for the command to deal with ongoing
challenges that limit SOF personnel‘s access to language-training
opportunities.
What GAO Found:
Recent actions taken by the U.S. Special Operations Command are
starting to address some long-standing problems with the management of
the SOF foreign language program and the delivery of language
training. In September 2002, the command consolidated all training
under a single contractor to provide a universal, standardized
curriculum and a range of delivery mechanisms for Army, Navy, and Air
Force SOF components. Initial assessments suggest that the
contractor‘s offerings are meeting contract expectations. In other
actions, the program is completing an overdue assessment of SOF
language requirements, developing a database of language proficiencies
and training, and finding ways to take advantage of other national
language-training assets. While promising, these ongoing actions are
taking place without the benefit of a cohesive management framework
incorporating a strategy and strategic planning to guide, integrate,
and monitor its activities. Without such a framework, the program
risks losing its current momentum and failing to meet new language-
training needs that SOF personnel are likely to acquire as they take
on expanded roles in combating terrorism and other military
operations.
The SOF foreign language program continues to face challenges, such as
more frequent and longer deployments, that limit personnel‘s access to
language training. Army Reserve and National Guard SOF members face
additional difficulties in gaining access to centrally located
training because of geographical dispersion and part-time status; they
also have lower monetary incentives to acquire language proficiencies
and fewer training opportunities. As a result, most SOF personnel have
been unable to take needed training or required tests to qualify in
their respective language(s). To address these challenges, program
officials are looking into distance/distributive-learning approaches,
which offer ’anytime, anywhere“ training that would be highly
adaptable to SOF personnel needs, but they are still at an early stage
in their evaluations.
What GAO Recommends:
To improve the management and delivery of language training, GAO is
recommending that the Secretary of Defense direct the U.S. Special
Operations Command to (1) adopt a strategy and strategic planning and
(2) incorporate distributive-learning approaches. GAO also recommends
that the Secretary evaluate proficiency pay incentives and pay and
allowance funding for SOF reserve and guard members and options for
oral testing. The Department of Defense agreed with all but one
recommendation, stating that it could not adopt a strategy until it
was properly reviewed and approved.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-1026.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click
on the link above. For more information, contact Neal Curtin at
(757) 552-8100 or curtinn@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Program Addresses Some Long-Standing Problems but Lacks a Strategic
Planning Approach:
Approach Needed to Improve Access to Language-Training Resources:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Language Proficiency Levels and Requirements:
Appendix III: Status of the Language Services Contract between the
U.S. Special Operations Command and B.I.B. Consultants:
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Special Operations Forces Personnel Requiring Foreign Language
Proficiency, by Service Component:
Table 2: Number of Special Operations Forces Personnel Needing Language
Training for Quarter Ending March 31, 2003:
Table 3: Personnel Meeting Language Proficiency Requirement from
Quarters Ending September 2002 through June 2003:
Table 4: Continuum of Learning Methods:
Table 5: Organizations and Offices Contacted during Our Review:
Table 6: Foreign Language Capabilities at Proficiency Levels:
Table 7: U.S. Special Operations Command Proficiency Standards for
Service Components:
Table 8: Foreign Language Training Provided by B.I.B. Consultants
Contract:
Table 9: Student Evaluations Responses from Some Initial Acquisition
SOF Language Classes at the U.S. Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare
Center and School, Fort Bragg, North Carolina, during the First Quarter
of 2003:
Table 10: Student Evaluations Responses from Initial Acquisition SOF
Language Classes at Naval Special Warfare Command, Group I, Coronado,
California, during the Second Quarter of 2003:
Figure:
Figure 1: Student Proficiency Score Results for Listening and Reading
for Initial Acquisition Language Courses at the Army's John F. Kennedy
Special Warfare Center and School for the First Quarter of Fiscal Year
2003:
Abbreviations:
DOD: Department of Defense:
SCOLA: Satellite Communications for Learning:
SOF: special operations forces:
SOFLO: Special Operations Forces Language Office:
United States General Accounting Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
September 30, 2003:
The Honorable John W. Warner
Chairman
The Honorable Carl Levin
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Armed Services
United States Senate:
The Honorable Duncan Hunter
Chairman
The Honorable Ike Skelton
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Armed Services
House of Representatives:
As they have recently demonstrated in Afghanistan and Iraq, special
operations forces (SOF) are playing an increasingly significant role in
U.S. military operations by performing extremely difficult, complex,
and politically sensitive missions on short notice anytime and anywhere
in the world. To successfully conduct these missions, SOF personnel
must undergo extensive training--often years in duration--to acquire a
wide variety of military skills, among them a proficiency in a foreign
language. More than one-fourth of all SOF military personnel, or about
12,000 out of 44,000, have a foreign language requirement in order to
enable them to operate effectively in countries where languages other
than English are spoken.
To meet its specific language training needs, the U.S. Special
Operations Command[Footnote 1] (the command) established a separate
foreign language program within the Department of Defense (DOD) in the
early 1990s.[Footnote 2] The command delegated the U.S. Army Special
Operations Command as its proponent for foreign language matters and,
in turn, the Army command set up the Special Operations Forces Language
Office (SOFLO) to oversee and manage the SOF foreign language program.
The program prescribes the policies for all aspects of the program,
including its funding; reporting; and delivery of initial acquisition,
sustainment, and enhancement training for SOF forces in the Army, Navy,
and Air Force.
The Senate Report on the Fiscal Year 2003 National Defense
Authorization Act[Footnote 3] mandated that we review the foreign
language requirements and training for SOF personnel. In December 2002
and April 2003, we briefed your offices on the initial results of our
review. In this report, we (1) assess recent actions taken by the
U.S. Special Operations Command to improve the management and delivery
of its foreign language training to special operations forces personnel
and (2) identify ways for the command to deal with challenges that
limit accessibility to its foreign language-training resources.
We conducted our review from October 2002 through July 2003 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Our scope and methodology are described in appendix I.
Results in Brief:
Recent actions taken by the U.S. Special Operations Command are
beginning to address some long-standing problems that have affected
the management of the foreign language program and the delivery of its
training. However, these actions are being taken without the benefit of
a cohesive management framework that could foster continued program
improvements. In September 2002, the command consolidated all of its
language training under a single contractor to reduce problems with
multiple contractors and inconsistencies in the type, quality, and
acquisition of training. The new contract is expected to offer the
program a universal, standardized training curriculum; a range of
delivery mechanisms; and the consistent monitoring of student and
teacher performance. An initial quarterly review by the command in
March 2003 and our analysis of student performance data suggest that
the contractor's offerings are meeting the expectations set out in the
contract, such as students' achievement of proficiency goals. In other
actions, the program is (1) completing a long overdue assessment of
language requirements; (2) expanding its communication and
coordination between the Army, Navy, and Air Force SOF offices that use
its training and with other language resource stakeholders;
(3) developing a database to track foreign language proficiencies and
training across the services; and (4) examining ways to take better
advantage of other national language-training resources (e.g., the
Defense Language Institute). While promising, these actions are being
taken without the advantage of a cohesive management framework that
incorporates strategic planning (a strategy and a strategic plan with
an associated performance plan and reports) that could guide the
program, integrate its activities, and monitor its performance. The
command has drafted a strategy for meeting its foreign language
requirements--a first step in developing this framework--but it has not
yet approved it. Without such a framework, the program risks losing its
current momentum, and it may be unable to meet the new language-
training needs that SOF personnel are likely to have as they take on
expanded roles and responsibilities in counterterrorism and other
military operations.
The SOF foreign language program continues to face ongoing
challenges that limit the access that special operations forces have
to language-training opportunities, but it is beginning to seek ways to
resolve these. More frequent and longer deployments and competing
priority training needs have reduced the time that both active-duty and
reserve/guard units have for language training. SOF personnel in Army
Reserve and National Guard units face further difficulties in gaining
access to centrally located language training because of their
geographical dispersion and part-time status. These part-time personnel
also receive lower monetary incentives for meeting language proficiency
standards than their active-duty counterparts, and their units do not
have the pay and allowance funds to send all of them to language
training. As a result, most SOF personnel have been unable to get the
training or take the proficiency tests they need to qualify in their
respective language(s). Furthermore, language proficiency testing by
oral interview, which program officials consider as more germane to SOF
requirements, is not always available or used to measure language
proficiency for qualification. Moreover, as their roles and
responsibilities expand, SOF personnel may face further limitations on
their access to training, although the precise impacts of these changes
are still not clear. Although the command's new contract offers some
new and more flexible training options, it does not cover
nontraditional training methods, such as distance/distributive
learning, which can provide "anytime, anywhere" options that would be
highly adaptable to SOF personnel training needs. Program officials are
looking into some of these new options (e.g., regular and broadband
Internet-based language resources and video tele-training) and the
resources that would be needed to incorporate them into the program,
but they are still at an early stage in their evaluations.
We are making recommendations to improve the management and delivery of
the SOF foreign language-training program by adopting a strategy and
developing strategic planning tools; increase SOF personnel's access to
foreign language training by incorporating distance/distributive-
learning tools into the SOF program; provide Army Reserve and National
Guard personnel with greater monetary incentives and training
advantages to acquire and maintain language proficiency; and provide
additional opportunities for SOF personnel to test and qualify in their
respective language(s) by increasing the use and availability of oral
proficiency interview testing. In its comments on a draft of this
report, DOD agreed with all but one recommendation. DOD did not agree
with our recommendation to adopt a strategy and develop
strategic-planning tools, stating that it could not adopt a SOF
language strategy until it was properly reviewed and approved within
the department. We clarified this recommendation to make it clear that
we did not intend to circumvent the department's review and approval
process.
Background:
Foreign language needs have significantly increased throughout DOD and
the federal government with the presence of a wider range of security
threats, the emergence of new nation states, and the globalization of
the U.S. economy. The difficulties in maintaining sufficient foreign
language capabilities among federal agencies and departments have been
identified as a serious human capital problem for some time.[Footnote
4] The entire military has faced shortfalls in language capability in
recent operations, such as difficulties in finding sufficient numbers
of qualified language speakers during peacekeeping operations in the
Balkans and combat actions in Afghanistan. In recent reports, we have
stated that shortages of staff with foreign language skills have
affected agency operations and have hindered U.S. military, law
enforcement, intelligence, counterterrorism, and diplomatic
efforts.[Footnote 5]
The U.S. Special Operations Command faces similar challenges in
managing its SOF language training to maintain sufficient language
capability to support its missions. For example, (1) it is common for
SOF personnel to have received language training in more than three
languages during their career; (2) SOF units often operate in
geographic regions where there are numerous languages, (3) high
operational demands and force structure limitations often require SOF
personnel to operate in areas where their specific foreign language(s)
are not spoken, and (4) it is difficult to determine the right
languages and personnel mix to address a wide variety of unknown and
hard-to-forecast small-scale conflicts.
The U.S. Special Operations Command established its SOF Foreign
Language Program in 1993 to provide combatant commanders with SOF
individuals and units that have the required foreign language
proficiency to meet current and future operational
requirements.[Footnote 6] The command designated the U.S. Army Special
Operations Command, at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, as the proponent in
all matters related to training, policies, programs, and procedures for
SOF language requirements and capabilities.
In 1998, the Army Command established the Special Operations Forces
Language Office at Fort Bragg. Currently located in the command's
training directorate, the office is responsible for providing technical
oversight and developing, coordinating, and executing foreign-
language-training strategies for active-duty, reserve, and National
Guard SOF personnel within the three service components: the U.S. Army
Special Operations Command, the U.S. Naval Special Warfare Command, and
the U.S. Air Force Special Operations Command.[Footnote 7] The office
is also responsible for running the Army's SOF foreign language
program. The Navy and Air Force SOF components are responsible for
managing their own language-training programs.
The foreign language program provides training for more than 12,000 SOF
military personnel (about 28 percent of all 43,671 SOF personnel) who
are required to acquire some level of proficiency in one or more
foreign languages. Of these, about 90 percent (10,833) are in the
U.S. Army Special Operations Command; more than half of them are in
Army Reserve or National Guard units. (See table 1.) The remaining
10 percent of SOF personnel with language needs are in the U.S. Naval
Special Warfare Command (1,128) and U.S. Air Force Special Operations
Command (155).[Footnote 8] The training consists of initial acquisition
(becoming proficient in a new language), sustainment (maintaining a
proficiency), and enhancement (raising a proficiency). It also includes
a basic orientation to the customs and cultures of world regions where
their languages are used.
Table 1: Special Operations Forces Personnel Requiring Foreign Language
Proficiency, by Service Component:
Service component: U.S. Army Special Operations Command; Total number
of SOF personnel[A]: 26,804; Require foreign language proficiency:
Number of active-duty SOF personnel: 4,475; Require foreign language
proficiency: Number of reserve/guard SOF personnel: 6,358; Require
foreign language proficiency: Total number of SOF personnel with
language requirement: 10,833; Require foreign language proficiency:
Percentage of total SOF personnel with language requirement: 89.4.
Service component: U.S. Naval Special Warfare Command; Total number of
SOF personnel[A]: 6,360; Require foreign language proficiency: Number
of active-duty SOF personnel: 1,128; Require foreign language
proficiency: Number of reserve/guard SOF personnel: 0; Require foreign
language proficiency: Total number of SOF personnel with language
requirement: 1,128; Require foreign language proficiency: Percentage of
total SOF personnel with language requirement: 9.3.
Service component: U.S. Air Force Special Operations Command; Total
number of SOF personnel[A]: 10,507; Require foreign language
proficiency: Number of active-duty SOF personnel: 155; Require foreign
language proficiency: Number of reserve/guard SOF personnel: 0; Require
foreign language proficiency: Total number of SOF personnel with
language requirement: 155; Require foreign language proficiency:
Percentage of total SOF personnel with language requirement: 1.3.
Service component: Total; Total number of SOF personnel[A]: 43,671;
Require foreign language proficiency: Number of active-duty SOF
personnel: 5,758; Require foreign language proficiency: Number of
reserve/guard SOF personnel: 6,358; Require foreign language
proficiency: Total number of SOF personnel with language requirement:
12,116; Require foreign language proficiency: Percentage of total SOF
personnel with language requirement: 100.0.
Source: Special Operations Forces Language Office.
Note: As of September 2003.
[A] The total number of SOF personnel does not include civilians.
Totals also do not include a Marine Corps detachment of 81 personnel
assigned to the command. Seven of the 81 Marines have a language
requirement, but their language training does not fall under the SOF
language program.
[End of table]
SOF personnel require foreign language skills in most of the special
operations forces' core tasks, such as unconventional warfare,
counterterrorism, counter proliferation of weapons of mass destruction,
civil affairs, psychological operations, information operations, and
foreign internal defense. The command, in coordination with the
organizations for which it provides forces, determines the languages,
levels of proficiencies, and number of language-qualified personnel
needed in its units through an assessment of the operational needs of
the geographic unified commands.[Footnote 9] Currently, SOF has
requirements in more than 30 foreign languages, such as Chinese
Mandarin, Modern Arabic, Indonesian, Korean, Persian-Farsi, Russian,
and Spanish.
In contrast with other intelligence or diplomatic foreign language
training, SOF training places greater emphasis on oral communication
skills (speaking and listening) than on nonverbal skills (reading and
writing) in order to give SOF personnel the ability to communicate
during operations in the field. The level of proficiency that needs to
be achieved varies by unit and mission and can range from limited
skills necessary to understand and utter certain memorized phrases for
immediate survival to more intermediate skills (e.g., the ability to
deal with concrete topics in past, present, and future tenses)
necessary to meet routine social demands and limited job requirements.
For example, the Army's Special Forces units (active-duty and National
Guard), which account for about half of the Army personnel with a
language requirement, generally need only a limited command of the
language for immediate survival needs. Personnel who conduct
psychological operations, foreign internal defense, and civil affairs
missions generally need higher proficiency skills because of their
greater contact and interaction with local civilians and military
personnel. Although higher proficiency levels are desired, language is
only one, and often not the highest, priority of the many skills that
SOF personnel must acquire and maintain to effectively conduct their
missions. Appendix II provides information on language proficiency
levels and requirements.
The special operations forces foreign language program is funded
directly through the command's annual budget.[Footnote 10] Funding for
the program amounted to $9.5 million and $10.2 million in fiscal years
2002 and 2003, respectively, and it is projected to be $11.1 million in
fiscal year 2004. The command provides portions of the program's
funding to each service component command to pay for its own respective
foreign language training activities and to SOFLO to manage the
program. The program's funding constitutes a very small portion of the
command's annual budget, which is projected to be about $6.7 billion in
fiscal year 2004.
Program Addresses Some Long-Standing Problems but Lacks a Strategic
Planning Approach:
The command and SOFLO have taken several recent actions to begin
addressing a number of long-standing problems in delivering and
managing foreign language training to special operations forces.
However, these actions are being taken without the benefit of a
cohesive management framework, which incorporates strategic planning
(a strategy and strategic plan with associated performance plans and
reports), that would guide the program, integrate its activities, and
monitor its performance. Such an approach would help the program
maintain its present momentum, better manage its human capital
challenges, and meet the language-training needs of SOF personnel as
they take on new roles and responsibilities.
Recent Actions Should Begin to Strengthen SOF Foreign Language Program:
The command and SOFLO are taking several actions that begin to
strengthen the foreign-language-training program for SOF forces.
These actions include consolidating all language training under a
single contractor, completing a long overdue assessment of language
requirements, improving communication and coordination with all program
stakeholders, developing a database to monitor language proficiencies
and training, and looking for ways to make use of other foreign-
language-training assets. According to a SOFLO official, these actions
have been initiated in part by the command's increased attention since
September 11, 2001, to issues involving SOF language capabilities
necessary to carry out core missions.
New B.I.B. Contract Consolidates Language Training:
For many years, the SOF foreign-language-training program's service
components and their units acquired language training through multiple
contractors, encompassing a variety of private companies and
universities. According to command officials, this practice led to
inconsistencies in the type and quality of training, the response to
meeting new or changing language requirements, and the way language
training was acquired by individual service components. Various
contractors used different instruction methods, and their training
materials varied in quality.
In September 2002, the command awarded all of its commercial language
training to a single contractor, B.I.B. Consultants. Command officials
told us that the new 5-year contract provides for greater
standardization and a more consistent approach to language training and
improves the way language training services are acquired throughout the
command. Specifically, the new contract offers a universal,
standardized training curriculum, an ability to customize instruction
to meet specific needs; a way to attain language proficiencies faster;
and a consistent monitoring of instruction and individual performance.
The contractor, a business franchise of Berlitz International,[Footnote
11] plans to use its parent's worldwide resources to provide SOF
personnel with a variety of instruction services (such as classroom
instruction, tutoring, and total immersion training in a live or
virtual environment). Command officials also believe that the
instruction method used by the contractor offers a way for SOF
personnel to attain proficiency faster. To fully realize the benefits
of the new contract, the command has required each of its service
components and their units to use the contract to meet all their
language-training needs, except when they take advantage of other
government language resources, such as the Defense Language Institute.
Some of the B.I.B. contract costs are higher than those in previous
contracts because the command awarded the new contract on the
basis of "best value" and gave management and technical factors higher
consideration than price. A SOFLO official estimated that the annual
contract cost is currently about $5.5 million to $6 million. If this
figure remains the same each year, the total cost of the 5-year
contract is projected to be about $30 million. A SOFLO official said
that the total amount could be higher if SOF service components utilize
more of the contract's language services. This could happen as the
service components and their units become more familiar with the
contract services and as more SOF personnel return from current
deployments and are able to access language training.[Footnote 12] The
official also said that some costs are higher than those in prior
contracts for such language-training services as total immersion, in
which students practice a language while living in another country or
in a language-controlled isolated environment. Command officials
believe the improved quality and delivery of language training outweigh
any increased cost.
B.I.B. Consultants appears to be meeting the expectations, including
having its beginning language students meet their proficiency goals,
set out in its contract with the command. At the command's initial
quarterly contract review in March 2003, which covered the first
5 months of implementation, command and contractor officials focused on
provisions in the contract and on procedural aspects, such as
scheduling training, providing materials, and developing contacts.
Command officials brought up several issues largely related to the cost
and implementation of immersion training, classroom requirements for
instructors and materials, and the delivery of tactical language
training.[Footnote 13] On the basis of discussions among attendees and
our observations at the review, none of the issues discussed appeared
irresolvable, and most of them could be addressed by improved
communications and more experience in understanding and executing the
contract. For example, B.I.B. officials agreed to work with the service
components to find ways to reduce some immersion training costs. A
second contract review was held in August 2003.
According to SOFLO, each of the command's service components is using
the language services provided under the B.I.B. contract, and the
results from some initial acquisition classes indicate that students
are achieving most of the proficiency goals. A B.I.B. contract manager
told us that the company believes it is successfully implementing the
provisions of its contract. The official said that B.I.B. Consultants
and Berlitz International had formed a joint team in October 2002 to
manage all contract operations necessary to provide the full range of
training services requested by the government. The official said that
B.I.B. had successfully delivered the services requested through July
2003 and had promptly addressed the few issues (e.g., higher costs for
immersion training and the quality of some materials) that arose.
Appendix III provides additional information on the status of the
contract's implementation at the command's service components and our
analysis of the preliminary results of the students' performance under
the new contract.
Language Requirement Assessment Nears Completion:
In another action, the command is nearing the completion of a
long-overdue assessment of its SOF foreign language requirements.
The assessment is based on the operational requirements identified by
the command in conjunction with the geographic unified commanders.
It validates the languages, proficiency levels, and number of positions
in each SOF unit that are needed to conduct special operations
missions. The assessment is used by the SOF service components and
SOFLO to determine future language-training requirements. Although
such assessments are supposed to be conducted at least every 2 years,
this is the first commandwide assessment since 1997. Command officials
expect the assessment to be approved by the fall of 2003.
Communications and Coordination with Other Stakeholders Is Increasing:
SOFLO is in the process of expanding its communications and
coordination with all of the stakeholders that are involved in
delivering language training to SOF personnel. According to officials
at the Navy and Air Force SOF components, the Defense Language
Institute, and DOD headquarters, SOFLO officials have recently
increased their contacts and visits with them to discuss language
issues and ways to improve coordination.
In addition, in December 2002, SOFLO reinstituted an annual language
conference, which had not been held since 1997, that is designed to
serve as a forum where SOF language issues can be discussed and
resolved. Conference attendees included command representatives from
headquarters and the service components and guests from the
intelligence, academic, and other language-using communities who were
invited to gain an appreciation of the differences between SOF
requirements and other DOD language organizations and obtain their
perspectives. SOFLO held another conference in August 2003.
SOFLO also has recently developed an Internet-based Web site to provide
information on SOF language training, including schedules of courses
and other training opportunities; links to the latest directives,
policies, and procedures; training help-aids; points of contacts;
upcoming events; and information about the B.I.B. contract and other
language resources. Although some difficulties remain with providing
all SOF personnel with full access to the Web site, a SOFLO official
told us that the Web site should help increase the program's visibility
and provide information about the command's language training.
Several Navy, Air Force, and command officials we talked with said
that, over the years, SOFLO's attention has focused largely on Army SOF
language issues and has paid less attention to the Navy and Air Force
language programs. These officials said that SOFLO's recent efforts to
increase its visits and contacts, hold an annual conference, and
develop other communication tools should help to bring more balance and
an increased "joint" focus to the program. Also, Defense Language
Institute officials stated that the increased contacts between their
organization and SOFLO would allow the institute to better understand
SOF language needs and determine how it could best support the program.
New Database Is Being Developed to Improve Tracking of Language
Training and Readiness:
SOFLO is developing a central, standardized database to capture
information on the language training and proficiency status of SOF
personnel and to assess language capabilities across the services. A
SOFLO official said that full implementation of the database is
critical because there is currently no centralized commandwide system
to track or access information related to language readiness or
training. Service components and their units will be responsible for
updating their portion of the data each quarter. In the future, SOFLO
plans to develop a Web-based, data-entry capability to make updating
easier and more user friendly.
Program Explores Use of Other National Language Assets:
While most language-training needs are met by the new B.I.B. contract,
SOFLO is exploring ways to expand its use of other national language
resources to complement and provide additional support for its program.
Such language assets can offer training and technology capabilities
that are not available in the SOF program, include the following:
* The Defense Language Institute, which is DOD's primary source of
language instruction, has developed tactical language help-aids
(e.g., pocket cards with key phases and words) that can be used to
support language needs during military operations. The institute also
provides real-time video language instruction for many military
facilities around the world and is developing other distance/
distributive-learning capabilities. Several SOF unit personnel told us
that they value the institute's resident training and would attend if
their time allowed it.
* The Satellite Communications for Learning (SCOLA) broadcast
network's[Footnote 14] programming provides access to most world
languages, including less common languages that are not often taught in
the United States. By watching and listening, students are able to
actually experience the foreign culture and develop their language
skills in a native real-life environment. The broadcasts also provide
significant insight into the internal events of the various countries.
The SOF unit personnel we spoke with said that the network helps
students sustain language skills, learn dialects, and improve cross-
cultural understanding. SCOLA officials told us that over the next
5 years, they plan to increase the programming, provide Internet
delivery of services, improve their infrastructure to better respond to
special program requests, and develop on-demand digital video archiving
of past programs.
* The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is developing new
technologies to improve language translation capabilities. These
include hand-held devices that provide limited real-time, face-to-face
speech translation in the field. These devices initially were developed
for users involved in medical first-response, force-protection, and
refugee-reunification missions. SOF personnel used some of these
devices during the recent Afghanistan operations. While not a
substitute for individual language skills, these new technologies help
bridge some language gaps in the field.
SOF Language Program Lacks Cohesive Strategic Planning:
While these ongoing actions begin to improve and strengthen the foreign
language program, SOFLO is implementing them without the benefit of a
cohesive management framework that incorporates strategic planning
(a strategy and strategic plan with associated performance plan and
reports). According to a command directive, SOFLO is responsible for
developing a long-range SOF language acquisition strategy.[Footnote 15]
Although SOFLO has drafted a document outlining a strategy, this has
not yet been approved. A SOFLO official told us that the strategy is
expected to be issued by the end of 2003.
Strategic planning is essential for this type of program because it
provides the tools for applying good management practices. Such tools
include a statement of the program's results-oriented goals and
objectives, the strategy it will use to achieve those goals and
objectives, including key milestones and priorities, and the
measurements (both quantitative and qualitative) that it will use to
monitor and report on its progress, identify necessary corrective
actions, and better manage risk. These tools also provide a mechanism
to better align, establish clear linkages, and assign roles and
responsibilities in the organizational structure and determine the
program resources needed. Such planning requires top leadership support
and, if done well, is continuous, involves all program stakeholders,
and provides the basis for everything an organization does each day to
support the achievement of its goals and objectives.
Using strategic planning for SOF's foreign language program would also
be consistent with the general management principles set forth in the
Government Performance and Results Act of 1993,[Footnote 16] which is
the primary legislative framework for strategic planning in the federal
government. In our prior reports and guidance, we have also emphasized
the importance of integrating human capital considerations into
strategic planning to more effectively plan and manage people's needs
and to address future workforce challenges, such as investments in
training and developing people.[Footnote 17] We recently released an
exposure draft that outlines a framework consisting of a set of
principles and key questions that federal agencies can use to ensure
that their training and development investments are targeted
strategically.[Footnote 18] Additionally, the Office of the Secretary
of Defense, in recognition of the need for a more strategic approach to
human capital planning, published the Military Personnel Human
Resources Strategic Plan in April 2002 to establish military personnel
priorities for the next several years.
Strategic planning--a strategy and strategic plan with an associated
performance plan and reports--would ensure that good management
principles are being used to manage the program and achieve the
results-oriented goals and objectives established for the program.
Aligning this planning with DOD's overall human capital strategy would
further ensure that the pervasive human capital challenges facing the
SOF foreign language program are considered in the broader context of
overall DOD military personnel priorities. Without such a cohesive
management framework, the program may lose its current momentum, and it
may be unable to meet the new language-training needs that SOF
personnel are likely to have as they take on expanded roles and
responsibilities in counterterrorism and other military operations.
Approach Needed to Improve Access to Language-Training Resources:
The SOF foreign-language-training program continues to face ongoing
challenges that limit the access that special operations forces have to
take advantage of language-training opportunities. These challenges
include more frequent and longer deployments for active-duty, reserve,
and guard units. In addition, Army Reserve and National Guard members
face further hurdles in getting access to training because of their
geographic dispersion and part-time status. These members also receive
lower monetary incentives for achieving required proficiencies and
fewer training opportunities than active-duty members. Greater reliance
on SOF personnel in combating terrorism may increase these challenges.
Recognizing the underlying problems of access, SOFLO has begun
looking into nontraditional training methods, such as distance/
distributive-learning tools, including tools that provide on-demand
"anytime anywhere" language training. But program officials are still
at an early stage in their evaluations.
Ongoing Challenges Affect Access to Language Training:
Acquiring and maintaining a proficiency in a foreign language takes
continuous practice and, because it is a highly perishable skill, it
can deteriorate rapidly without such practice. As a result, SOF
personnel need to have a wide range of options to gain access to
language-training resources at anytime and anywhere they are stationed
or deployed.
However, the SOF language program is facing several challenges that
affect accessibility to language training. In recent years, both
active-duty and reserve/guard SOF personnel have had less time for
overall training because they have been deployed more frequently and
for longer periods of time. In addition, when they have had time to
train, their language training has often competed with other higher-
priority training needs, such as marksmanship or nuclear-biological-
chemical training. As a result, they have often been unable to complete
the necessary language training to reach required proficiencies and to
take the necessary tests to qualify in their respective language(s).
Furthermore, Army Reserve and National Guard soldiers, who make up more
than half of the total number of SOF personnel requiring language
proficiency,[Footnote 19] face additional hurdles in finding time and
gaining access to language training. These soldiers are spread across
28 states and are often located at long distances from their unit's
facilities, making it difficult to get to centrally located training
resources. In addition, they have fewer days available for training
because of their part-time status.
Moreover, because of their part-time status, Army Reserve and National
Guard soldiers have lower monetary incentives to undertake language
training than do active-duty personnel. According to SOFLO, active-duty
Army SOF personnel receive foreign language proficiency pay, for
example, of $100 each month if they attain a language proficiency level
of 2.[Footnote 20] By contrast, Army Reserve and National Guard
personnel get $13.33 each month if they attain the same proficiency
because their proficiency pay is prorated according to the number of
days they train.[Footnote 21] Many of the more than 50 Army Reserve and
National Guard soldiers we spoke with said that, despite the hurdles,
they often undertake language training on their own time because of the
value they place on foreign language skills in conducting their
missions. They added that higher proficiency pay allowances would give
them more incentive to study language and improve their proficiencies.
In its May 2002 report, DOD's Ninth Quadrennial Review of Military
Compensation recommended that the services be authorized to pay their
reserve and guard members the same monthly amount as active-duty
members for maintaining proficiency in designated critical languages in
order to provide consistency in the application of special pay between
reserve and active-duty members.[Footnote 22]
Additionally, a SOFLO official told us that current pay and
allowance[Footnote 23] funding levels for Army Reserve and National
Guard units do not allow units to send more soldiers to language
courses at the command's language schools and unit programs and Defense
Language Institute. The official said that this issue may become more
of a concern in fiscal year 2004, when the U.S. Army Recruiting Command
will no longer fund the pay and allowance for initial-entry reserve
soldiers going into civil affairs and psychological operations
positions to attend the Defense Language Institute. The official said,
however, that these proficiency pay and funding issues are not limited
to foreign language training but are broader DOD issues that affect
reserve and guard personnel throughout the military.
These access constraints have prevented large numbers of SOF
personnel from getting the necessary training (both initial and
sustainment training) and taking the annual tests that are necessary to
qualify in their language(s).[Footnote 24] As table 2 shows, for the
quarter ending in March 2003, more than 11,200 SOF personnel, or
93 percent of the 12,116 of those who had a language requirement,
needed to take either initial or sustainment training.[Footnote 25]
According to a SOFLO official, these statistics may be higher than
usual because of recent deployments to the Middle East and because of
some administrative underreporting. Earlier quarters in 2002 show that
about 75 percent of SOF personnel required training. As table 2 also
indicates, most of the training needs for Navy SOF personnel were for
initial language acquisition (83 percent of 1,128), while for Army and
Air Force SOF members, the training needs were primarily for
sustainment (85 and 64 percent, respectively).
Table 2: Number of Special Operations Forces Personnel Needing Language
Training for Quarter Ending March 31, 2003:
Service component: U.S. Army Special Operations Command; Total number
of personnel requiring language skills: 10,833; Personnel
needing initial training: Number: 806; Personnel needing initial
training: Percent: 7; Personnel needing sustainment
training[A]: Number: 9,240; Personnel needing sustainment training[A]:
Percent: 85; Total personnel needing training: Number: 10,046;
Total personnel needing training: Percent: 93.
Service component: U.S. Naval Special Warfare Command; Total number of
personnel requiring language skills: 1,128; Personnel needing
initial training: Number: 935; Personnel needing initial training:
Percent: 83; Personnel needing sustainment training[A]:
Number: 86; Personnel needing sustainment training[A]: Percent: 8;
Total personnel needing training: Number: 1,021; Total
personnel needing training: Percent: 91.
Service component: U.S. Air Force Special Operations Command; Total
number of personnel requiring language skills: 155; Personnel
needing initial training: Number: 42; Personnel needing initial
training: Percent: 27; Personnel needing sustainment
training[A]: Number: 99; Personnel needing sustainment training[A]:
Percent: 64; Total personnel needing training: Number: 141;
Total personnel needing training: Percent: 91.
Service component: Total; Total number of personnel requiring language
skills: 12,116; Personnel needing initial training: Number:
1,783; Personnel needing initial training: Percent: 15;
Personnel needing sustainment training[A]: Number: 9,425; Personnel
needing sustainment training[A]: Percent: 78; Total personnel
needing training: Number: 11,208; Total personnel needing training:
Percent: 93.
Sources: Special Operations Forces Language Office (data); GAO
(analysis).
Notes: Percentage totals may not add because of rounding.
These statistics are derived from SOFLO's newly created database, and
the mechanisms for collecting the data and ensuring reliability are
still being worked out.
SOFLO also acknowledges that there may be some administrative
underreporting of data.
[A] Includes personnel that have some language background but require
additional training in a new language because of a change in assignment
or language requirement.
[End of table]
In reflection of this trend, the number of SOF personnel who have taken
a proficiency test and have qualified in their respective language(s)
within the last 12 months is low.[Footnote 26] As table 3 shows, in
every subsequent quarter since the quarter ending September 2002, less
than 25 percent of all Army, Navy, and Air Force SOF personnel with
language requirements have been tested within the last 12 months and
have met or exceeded the required proficiency to qualify in their
respective language(s). This percentage decreased in the subsequent
quarters. While acknowledging some administrative underreporting of
data, a SOFLO official attributed the low qualification levels to the
longer and more frequent deployments that hinder SOF personnel from
getting the training they need to take and pass the language tests. The
official said that the goal for proficiency varies by unit but that the
units' goals--having the total percentage of personnel in the unit meet
the language requirement--in the command's draft foreign language
strategy for the largest groups of SOF personnel requiring language
skills are 80 and 50 percent for U.S. Army Special Operations Command
active-duty and reserve component units, respectively. The proficiency
goal for U.S. Naval Special Warfare Command and U.S. Air Force Special
Operations Command units is 50 percent.
Table 3: Personnel Meeting Language Proficiency Requirement from
Quarters Ending September 2002 through June 2003:
Service component: U.S. Army Special Operations Command:
Service component: Special Forces:
Service component: Active; Total number requiring language skills:
3,756; Personnel meeting language requirement[A]: Quarter ending: Sept.
2002: Number: 1,720; Personnel meeting language requirement[A]: Quarter
ending: Sept. 2002: Percent: 46; Personnel meeting language
requirement[A]: Quarter ending: Dec. 2002: Number: 1,524; Personnel
meeting language requirement[A]: Quarter ending: Dec. 2002: Percent:
41;
Personnel meeting language requirement[A]: Quarter ending: March 2003:
Number: 387; Personnel meeting language requirement[A]: Quarter ending:
March 2003: Percent: 10; Personnel meeting language requirement[A]:
Quarter ending: June 2003: Number: 540; Personnel meeting language
requirement[A]: Quarter ending: June 2003: Percent: 14.
Service component: National Guard; Total number requiring language
skills: 1,731; Personnel meeting language requirement[A]: Quarter
ending: Sept. 2002: Number: 486; Personnel meeting language
requirement[A]: Quarter ending: Sept. 2002: Percent: 28; Personnel
meeting language requirement[A]: Quarter ending: Dec. 2002: Number:
602; Personnel meeting language requirement[A]: Quarter ending: Dec.
2002: Percent: 35; Personnel meeting language requirement[A]: Quarter
ending: March 2003: Number: 0; Personnel meeting language
requirement[A]: Quarter ending: March 2003: Percent: 0; Personnel
meeting language requirement[A]: Quarter ending: June 2003: Number: 0;
Personnel meeting language requirement[A]: Quarter ending: June 2003:
Percent: 0.
Service component: Civil Affairs/ Psychological Operations:
Service component: Active; Total number requiring language skills: 675;
Personnel meeting language requirement[A]: Quarter ending: Sept. 2002:
Number: 163; Personnel meeting language requirement[A]: Quarter ending:
Sept. 2002: Percent: 24; Personnel meeting language requirement[A]:
Quarter ending: Dec. 2002: Number: 185; Personnel meeting language
requirement[A]: Quarter ending: Dec. 2002: Percent: 27; Personnel
meeting language requirement[A]: Quarter ending: March 2003: Number:
24; Personnel meeting language requirement[A]: Quarter ending: March
2003: Percent: 4; Personnel meeting language requirement[A]: Quarter
ending: June 2003: Number: 213; Personnel meeting language
requirement[A]: Quarter ending: June 2003: Percent: 32.
Service component: Reserve; Total number requiring language skills:
4,627; Personnel meeting language requirement[A]: Quarter ending: Sept.
2002: Number: 243; Personnel meeting language requirement[A]: Quarter
ending: Sept. 2002: Percent: 5; Personnel meeting language
requirement[A]: Quarter ending: Dec. 2002: Number: 296; Personnel
meeting language requirement[A]: Quarter ending: Dec. 2002: Percent: 6;
Personnel meeting language requirement[A]: Quarter ending: March 2003:
Number: 94; Personnel meeting language requirement[A]: Quarter ending:
March 2003: Percent: 2; Personnel meeting language requirement[A]:
Quarter ending: June 2003: Number: 105; Personnel meeting language
requirement[A]: Quarter ending: June 2003: Percent: 2.
Service component: Other; Total number requiring language skills: 44;
Personnel meeting language requirement[A]: Quarter ending: Sept. 2002:
Number: 0; Personnel meeting language requirement[A]: Quarter ending:
Sept. 2002: Percent: 0; Personnel meeting language requirement[A]:
Quarter ending: Dec. 2002: Number: 0; Personnel meeting language
requirement[A]: Quarter ending: Dec. 2002: Percent: 0; Personnel
meeting language requirement[A]: Quarter ending: March 2003: Number: 0;
Personnel meeting language requirement[A]: Quarter ending: March 2003:
Percent: 0; Personnel meeting language requirement[A]: Quarter ending:
June 2003: Number: 0; Personnel meeting language requirement[A]:
Quarter ending: June 2003: Percent: 0.
Service component: Total; Total number requiring language skills:
10,833; Personnel meeting language requirement[A]: Quarter ending:
Sept. 2002: Number: 2,612; Personnel meeting language requirement[A]:
Quarter ending: Sept. 2002: Percent: 24; Personnel meeting language
requirement[A]: Quarter ending: Dec. 2002: Number: 2,607; Personnel
meeting language requirement[A]: Quarter ending: Dec. 2002: Percent:
24;
Personnel meeting language requirement[A]: Quarter ending: March 2003:
Number: 505; Personnel meeting language requirement[A]: Quarter ending:
March 2003: Percent: 5; Personnel meeting language requirement[A]:
Quarter ending: June 2003: Number: 858; Personnel meeting language
requirement[A]: Quarter ending: June 2003: Percent: 8.
Service component: U.S. Naval Special Warfare Command:
Service component: Total; Total number requiring language skills:
1,128; Personnel meeting language requirement[A]: Quarter ending: Sept.
2002: Number: 125; Personnel meeting language requirement[A]: Quarter
ending: Sept. 2002: Percent: 11; Personnel meeting language
requirement[A]: Quarter ending: Dec. 2002: Number: 52; Personnel
meeting language requirement[A]: Quarter ending: Dec. 2002: Percent:
5;
Personnel meeting language requirement[A]: Quarter ending: March 2003:
Number: 107; Personnel meeting language requirement[A]: Quarter ending:
March 2003: Percent: 9; Personnel meeting language requirement[A]:
Quarter ending: June 2003: Number: 57; Personnel meeting language
requirement[A]: Quarter ending: June 2003: Percent: 5.
Service component: U.S. Air Force Special Operations Command:
Service component: Total; Total number requiring language skills: 155;
Personnel meeting language requirement[A]: Quarter ending: Sept. 2002:
Number: 19; Personnel meeting language requirement[A]: Quarter ending:
Sept. 2002: Percent: 12; Personnel meeting language requirement[A]:
Quarter ending: Dec. 2002: Number: 18; Personnel meeting language
requirement[A]: Quarter ending: Dec. 2002: Percent: 12; Personnel
meeting language requirement[A]: Quarter ending: March 2003: Number:
14; Personnel meeting language requirement[A]: Quarter ending: March
2003: Percent: 9; Personnel meeting language requirement[A]: Quarter
ending: June 2003: Number: 21; Personnel meeting language
requirement[A]: Quarter ending: June 2003: Percent: 14.
Service component: Grand total; Total number requiring language skills:
12,116; Personnel meeting language requirement[A]: Quarter ending:
Sept. 2002: Number: 2,756; Personnel meeting language requirement[A]:
Quarter ending: Sept. 2002: Percent: 23; Personnel meeting language
requirement[A]: Quarter ending: Dec. 2002: Number: 2,677; Personnel
meeting language requirement[A]: Quarter ending: Dec. 2002: Percent:
22;
Personnel meeting language requirement[A]: Quarter ending: March 2003:
Number: 626; Personnel meeting language requirement[A]: Quarter ending:
March 2003: Percent: 5; Personnel meeting language requirement[A]:
Quarter ending: June 2003: Number: 936; Personnel meeting language
requirement[A]: Quarter ending: June 2003: Percent: 8.
Sources: Special Operations Forces Language Office (data); GAO
(analysis).
Notes: Percentage totals may not add because of rounding.
These statistics are derived from SOFLO's newly created database, and
the mechanisms for collecting the data and ensuring reliability are
still being worked out.
SOFLO also acknowledges that there may be some administrative
underreporting of data.
[A] Language requirement is satisfied if personnel have met or exceeded
the required proficiency level in the required language(s) within the
last 12 months. There is no distinction between personnel tested and
failed and personnel not tested.
[End of table]
According to a SOFLO official, the number of SOF personnel annually
tested in their respective language(s) could be increased if more
certified oral testers were available to administer the Oral
Proficiency Interview,[Footnote 27] the scheduling of these tests was
more flexible, and the services allowed greater use of these tests for
language(s) qualification. While most SOF personnel qualify in their
languages by taking the Defense Language Proficiency Test, an Oral
Proficiency Interview can also be used when the Defense Language
Proficiency Test is not available in a given language. The SOFLO
official stated that SOF prefers the oral test when it can be used
because of the importance placed on verbal skills in conducting
SOF missions. However, the certified oral testers,[Footnote 28] who are
normally members of the Defense Language Institute's teaching staff,
are sometimes unavailable because they are teaching or doing other
primary duties. Coordinating the schedules of the institute's staff and
the SOF members to conduct the tests is also difficult. For example,
while reserve and guard members are primarily available to take the
tests on weekends during their unit's drill time, it is not always
possible for the institute to schedule the two testers that are
required to administer the test in a given language during that same
time. Additionally, the SOFLO official stated that a draft Department
of the Army language regulation would allow use of the oral test even
if a Defense Language Proficiency Test exists for a given
language.[Footnote 29] The official said that SOFLO is working with the
Navy and the Air Force to make similar changes to their language
regulations.
As DOD places greater emphasis on the capabilities of special
operations forces, especially those related to counterterrorism,
command officials told us that these forces are unlikely to experience
any change in the frequency or length of their deployments. Although
command officials said they are still unsure about the impact of these
changes on SOF language needs, the problems of access are likely to
continue.
Distance/Distributive Learning Could Provide Better Access to
Language Training:
According to SOFLO officials, some of accessibility challenges may
be addressed by the development or expanded use of distance/
distributive-training tools, such as Internet-based training,
multimedia technologies, and SCOLA foreign language broadcasts. While
the new B.I.B. contract provides additional flexibility and training
options, it focuses primarily on traditional methods of delivering
language training, such as classroom training, one-on-one tutoring, and
total-immersion training. This type of live, person-to-person
instruction is the preferred method for most language learning.
However, distance/distributive-learning tools, particularly those
tools that deliver on-demand "anytime, anywhere" training, offer
options that can be effectively adapted to the training needs of SOF
personnel.
Distance/distributive learning encompasses a wide range of delivery
methods, including video tele-training, computer conferencing, and
correspondence courses. In recent years, DOD has sought to develop
the next generation of distance/distributive learning--advanced
distributed learning[Footnote 30]--which expands the range of options
for providing DOD personnel with access to high-quality education and
training, tailored to individual needs and delivered cost-effectively,
whenever and wherever it is required. Advanced distributed learning
includes Internet-based instruction, simulation, integrated networked
systems, and digital knowledge repositories. DOD's March 2002 Training
Transformation Strategy[Footnote 31] emphasizes the use of such
learning methodologies to ensure that training is readily available to
both active and reserve military personnel, regardless of time and
place. Table 4 shows the continuum of learning delivery methods from
classroom to advanced distributed learning.[Footnote 32]
Table 4: Continuum of Learning Methods:
Right time, right place: Classroom delivery method: Instructor-led
training; Right time, right place: Distance/distributive-learning
delivery methods: * Video tele-training; * Embedded training; *
Computer conferencing; * Interactive television; * Electronic
classrooms; * Interactive multimedia; * Computer-based training; *
Audio-graphics; * Audiotapes/videotapes; * Correspondence courses;
Anytime, anywhere: Advanced distributed learning delivery
methods: * Integrated networked systems; * Integrated platforms; *
Reusable learning objects; * Widespread collaboration; * Global
knowledge databases; * Intelligent tutoring systems; * Performance
aiding; * Digital knowledge repositories; * Internet-based instruction;
* Virtual libraries; * Simulation; * Virtual classrooms.
Source: Defense Acquisition University.
Note: The data displayed in the table are based on data provided in the
Defense Acquisition University's Strategic Plan 2002-2009 Training
Transformation (T2), The Defense Acquisition University Road Map for e-
Learning and On-Line Performance Support.
[End of table]
SOFLO officials have begun evaluating some of the distance/
distributive-learning options for language training that DOD has been
developing for its own language-training programs. They told us that
some of these efforts might be adaptable to the SOF program, as shown
in the following:
* The Defense Language Institute, in collaboration with the National
Cryptologic School, Foreign Service Institute, and the National Foreign
Language Center, are developing an Internet-based learning support
system, called LangNet, which provides language learners and teachers
with access to on-line language materials. The Defense Language
Institute is also expanding its video tele-training capabilities to
provide students located throughout the world with real-time language
instruction.
* The U.S. Army Intelligence Center at Fort Huachuca, Arizona, is
leading an initiative called Broadband Intelligence Training System, or
BITS, to use commercial broadband technology as a way to provide
individuals with Internet-based tele-training at the unit or at home.
SOFLO officials believe that this distance-learning tool shows the
promise of delivering on-demand courseware in various languages with
minimal technology requirements and being effective for initial
acquisition training.
* The Defense Advance Research Projects Agency is developing a
language-training simulation, which may be useful when speech
recognition software hurdles are resolved.
SOFLO also wants to expand the availability of individual multimedia
tools, e.g., CD-ROM and DVD media and players, so that SOF personnel
could use such tools at any location. Additionally, the Army's John F.
Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School at Fort Bragg, North
Carolina, is developing computer-based language courses that can be
accessed through an Army learning site or through correspondence.
Distributive learning was the principal theme of the command's annual
SOF language conference in August 2003, and SOFLO provided attendees
with information on various language-oriented initiatives.
A SOFLO official told us that distance/distributive-learning approaches
are most beneficial for providing individuals who already have some
language proficiency with sustainment training or enhancement training.
While useful, these approaches are often not considered the best
options for those individuals who need initial acquisition language
training where person-to-person interaction is most desired. The
official said that SOFLO is still in the early stages of evaluating and
determining which distance/distributive-learning options are best
suited to its program and the resources it will need to incorporate
them into its program.
Conclusions:
While the U.S. Special Operations Command has taken several recent
actions to begin improving the delivery of language training and the
management of its foreign language program, these actions have been
taken without the benefit of a cohesive management framework combined
with strategic planning tools. At the forefront of the recent actions
is a major shift in the way that the program provides language training
for active-duty, reserve, and guard SOF personnel in the Army, Navy,
and Air Force. Rather than using multiple contractors, the command has
consolidated all of the training under a single contractor to provide a
standardized curriculum and standardized training materials, more
flexible delivery mechanisms, and consistent monitoring of student and
teacher performance. These ongoing management actions address a wide
range of issues, including the need for more coordination and
communication within the program, the creation of a database to track
language proficiencies and training requirements, and better
utilization of other national language assets. However, because the
program has not yet issued a strategy and developed the necessary
strategic-planning tools (a strategic plan with an associated
performance plan and reports) to carry it out, the value and impact of
these disparate actions on the program as a whole is difficult to
evaluate. As a first step, the command could issue a strategy for
meeting SOF language requirements to establish its vision for language
training across the command. As a second step, the command could use
the strategic vision to develop necessary strategic planning tools to
guide the program in the future. Such strategic planning with the
support of top leadership would allow the program to determine what
actions are needed to meet its overall goals and objectives; ensure
that these actions are well integrated with each other; identify key
target dates, priorities, and the resources needed to undertake them;
develop performance measures to assess their progress and
effectiveness; identify corrective actions; and better manage risk. It
also should be aligned with DOD's overall human capital efforts to more
effectively address its personnel challenges. Without a cohesive
management framework based on strategic planning, the program risks
losing the momentum it has achieved so far and risk failing to meet the
growing needs of special operations forces for increasingly critical
foreign language skills.
Despite continuing challenges in accessing training, the development of
distance/distributive learning promises to offer SOF personnel greater
access to language resources. While SOF personnel are often unable to
take advantage of traditional, instructor-based language training
because of long deployments and geographical dispersion, they could
benefit from distance/distributive-training approaches that offer more
flexibility and accessibility to language training, including on-
demand, "anytime, anywhere" options. The use of distance/distributive
learning would also provide a good complement to the training services
offered by the command's new contract. The command has an opportunity
to support several promising DOD distance/distributive-learning
initiatives under way with participation and resources. Also, DOD could
consider expanding the use and availability of oral proficiency
interview testing to provide additional opportunities for SOF personnel
to test and qualify each year in their respective language(s). DOD
could also consider changing the amount paid to Army Reserve and
National Guard soldiers for foreign language proficiency to provide
additional incentive for them to maintain and improve their language
skills and provide more pay and allowance funds for these soldiers to
allow more to attend language schools and pursue other venues for
language training. Such changes might be a way to provide greater
assurance that Army Reserve and National Guard soldiers take advantage
of current language training and training that becomes available
through the use of distance/distributive learning.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To strengthen the management and delivery of foreign language training
for special operations forces, we recommend that the Secretary of
Defense direct the Commander of the U.S. Special Operations Command to:
* adopt a strategy for meeting special operations forces' foreign
language requirements and develop the necessary strategic-planning
tools (a strategic plan with associated performance plan and reports)
to use in managing and assessing the progress of its foreign language
program and to better address future human capital challenges and:
* incorporate distance/distributive-learning approaches into the
program to improve the special operations forces' access to language
training, and if additional resources are required, to request them.
In addition, the Secretary of Defense should evaluate current
(1) foreign language proficiency pay rates and (2) pay and allowance
funding levels for Army Reserve and National Guard personnel to
determine if changes are needed to provide them with a greater
incentive to undertake language study and allow for more personnel to
attend language schools and other training venues. Furthermore, the
Secretary of Defense should examine options for increasing the use and
availability of oral proficiency foreign language testing to provide
additional opportunities for SOF personnel to test and qualify in their
respective languages.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD concurred with all
but one of our recommendations. DOD's comments are reprinted in
appendix IV.
DOD did not agree with our recommendation that the U.S. Special
Operations Command adopt a strategy and develop strategic-planning
tools to strengthen the management and delivery of foreign language
training for special operations forces. DOD stated in its comments that
the command's current draft of a SOF language strategy is in its
infancy and needs to be properly reviewed through various DOD
organizations before the Secretary of Defense could direct its
adoption. Although nothing in our draft report was meant to suggest
that the draft language strategy should be implemented without proper
review, we clarified this recommendation to state that the command
adopt "a strategy," rather than any particular draft of a strategy.
While we recognize that it may take some time for the command to
prepare and approve such a document, we would note that the command has
a longstanding internal requirement, which dates to 1998, for the
program to have such a strategy. In its comments, DOD did not address
the second part of the recommendation, which called for the
development, in tandem with a strategy, of strategic planning tools to
use in managing and assessing the program's progress and address future
human capital challenges. We continue to believe that the timely
adoption of both a strategy and planning tools is an essential step for
ensuring the effective management of the SOF foreign language program.
DOD concurred with our other recommendations, specifically that the
command incorporate distributed learning approaches into its SOF
foreign language training; that the Secretary of Defense evaluate the
current foreign language proficiency pay rates and pay and allowance
funding levels for Army Reserve and National Guard personnel; and that
the Secretary examine options to increase the use and availability of
oral proficiency testing.
We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional
committees; the Secretary of Defense; the Commander of the U.S. Special
Operations Command; and the Director, Office of Management and Budget.
We will make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the
report will available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://
www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions, please call me on (757) 552-
8100. An additional GAO contact and other staff members who made key
contributions to this report are listed in appendix V.
Neal P. Curtin
Director, Defense Capabilities and Management:
Signed by Neal P. Curtin:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
In conducting our review, we focused on the foreign language training
that the U.S. Special Operations Command (the command) and its service
component commands in the Army, Navy, and Air Force provide for special
operations forces (SOF) personnel. This training is offered to active-
duty, reserve, and National Guard SOF personnel who have foreign
language proficiency requirements. We discussed SOF language issues
with a variety of officials at the Department of Defense (DOD), service
headquarters offices, the command's headquarters offices, Special
Operations Forces Language Office (SOFLO) and service component
commands, the Defense Language Institute, and other stakeholders that
provide or use the command's language training. The organizations and
offices that we contacted during our review are listed in table 5.
Table 5: Organizations and Offices Contacted during Our Review:
Location: Washington, D.C., area; Organization/Office contacted:
Department of Defense; * Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense
for C3I; * Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special
Operations, Low-Intensity Conflict, and Counter-terrorism; * Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency; * Departments of the Army and Air
Force National Guard Bureau; Department of the Army; * Army Foreign
Language Proponency Office; * DOD Foreign Language Program Office; *
Defense Language Institute-Washington; Department of the Navy; * Office
of the Chief of Naval Operations, Navy Foreign Language Office; *
Marine Corps Foreign Language Program Office; Department of the Air
Force; * Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance and Information
Operations Readiness Branch; Department of State; * Foreign Service
Institute.
Location: Fayetteville, N.C., area; Organization/Office contacted:
U.S. Army Special Operations Command, Fort Bragg, N.C; * Special
Operations Forces Language Office; * U.S. Special Forces Command; *
U.S. John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School; * U.S. Civil
Affairs and Psychological Operations Command; * 3rd Special Forces
Group; * Elements of the 351st Civil Affairs Command.
Location: Fort Walton Beach, Fla., area; Organization/Office contacted:
U.S. Air Force Special Operations Command, Hurlburt Field, Fla; *
U.S. Air Force Special Operations School; * 6th Special Operations
Squadron.
Location: Monterey, Calif., area; Organization/Office contacted:
Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center; Defense Manpower
Data Center.
Location: Norfolk, Va., area; Organization/Office contacted: Naval
Special Warfare Group 2; Naval Special Warfare Group 4.
Location: Omaha, Nebr., area; Organization/Office contacted: Satellite
Communications for Learning, McClelland, Iowa.
Location: Orlando, Fla., area; Organization/Office contacted: B.I.B.
Consultants, Inc.
Location: San Diego, Calif., area; Organization/Office contacted:
U.S. Naval Special Warfare Command, Coronado, Calif; * Naval Special
Warfare Group 1.
Location: Tampa, Fla., area; Organization/Office contacted:
U.S. Special Operations Command, MacDill Air Force Base, Fla; *
Training, Doctrine, and Education Division.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
To assess the command's recent actions to improve the management and
delivery of its SOF foreign language training, we obtained documents
and spoke with various stakeholders who use or support the training. In
particular, we talked with officials at SOFLO about their
responsibilities and the recent actions they have undertaken for the
SOF language program. We reviewed DOD and command guidance, policies,
speeches, reports, and other documents to increase our understanding of
the program's history and issues. We spoke with individuals in active-
duty, reserve, and National Guard SOF units to learn their perspectives
on obtaining language training and on achieving and retaining language
proficiencies. Specifically, we did the following:
* We discussed the command's new language services contract with
command contracting officials and officials at each of the service
components. We visited the contractor, B.I.B. Consultants, to discuss
its use of teaching methodologies and management strategies to
implement the contract. To obtain information about the first 11 months
of language training (October 2002-August 2003) under the new contract,
we (1) attended the command's first quarterly contract reviews in March
and August 2003; (2) discussed classes and other training activities
with command and service components officials, B.I.B. Consultants and
Berlitz International representatives, and language instructors and SOF
students; and (3) conducted analyses of student end-of-course
evaluations and proficiency results.
* We talked with command headquarters and SOFLO officials about the
command's progress in assessing the SOF language requirements and
in changing the way it communicates and coordinates (e.g., via annual
conference, Internet-based Web site, etc.) with its various
stakeholders. We attended the command's 2003 language conference.
Although we reviewed the process for determining SOF language
requirements, we did not examine the specific criteria and rationale
for decisions made for those requirements (e.g., languages, number of
personnel needed, and proficiency levels required for units) in its
recent assessment.
* To determine the extent to which the SOF language program uses other
national language training assets, we obtained information from and met
with officials at the Defense Language Institute, Satellite
Communications for Learning (SCOLA), Defense Applied Research Projects
Agency, and Foreign Service Institute. We also attended a SCOLA
language conference that focused on the use of its broadcasts to
support government language programs.
* To understand the use and merits of strategic planning and how it
could benefit the SOF language program, we reviewed our prior work on
strategic planning and strategic human capital management and the
general management principles laid out in the Government Performance
and Results Act of 1993.
In conducting our review of student end-of-course evaluations to
determine the satisfaction of students with classes taught by B.I.B.
under the new contract, we requested student evaluations from the
Army's John F. Kennedy Center and School for the first quarter of
fiscal year 2003 and from the Naval Special Warfare Command's Group 1
for the second quarter of fiscal year 2003. The Army's school and the
Navy's Group 1 provided evaluations from 11 (out of 22) classes and 3
(out of 3) classes, respectively. An Army school official told us that
the contractor could not provide the evaluations for the other 11
classes we requested because the evaluations had been misplaced. As a
result, our evaluation results may not be fully representative of the
views of all students in all classes because the missing evaluations
may have different responses from those that did respond and were
provided to GAO. In conducting our analysis, we selected three
questions from the student end-of course evaluations that, in our
judgment, provided an indication of the overall effectiveness of the
course, the instructor's performance, and the usefulness of course
materials. We also reviewed individual student proficiency scores from
22 initial acquisition classes conducted at the Army's school at Fort
Bragg, North Carolina, to determine the performance of students in
reaching end-of-course proficiency goals.
In identifying ways for the command to deal with challenges that limit
accessibility to its foreign language training resources, we
interviewed officials at SOFLO and the service component commands to
understand the training requirements and resources and determine the
challenges faced by SOF personnel in gaining accessing language
training. We examined information from SOFLO's language
database[Footnote 33] to assess the extent to which more frequent and
longer deployments may affect SOF personnel's access to the training
they need to pass exams and qualify in their particular languages. We
also talked with more than 50 members of Army Reserve and National
Guard units to better understand their particular difficulties and
limitations in getting training. We spoke with officials at the Defense
Language Institute and visited their facilities to obtain information
about their ongoing efforts to develop distance/distributed learning
and advanced distributed-learning methods. We also met with Defense
Applied Research Projects Agency officials to discuss how their new
technologies could support SOF language-training needs.
We performed our review from October 2002 through July 2003 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Language Proficiency Levels and Requirements:
The special operations forces foreign language-training program uses
the foreign language proficiency scale established by the federal
Interagency Language Roundtable.[Footnote 34] The scale ranks
individuals' language skills in terms of their ability to listen, read,
speak, and write in a foreign language. The scale has six basic
proficiency levels, ranging from zero to 5; level zero indicates no
language capability, and level 5 indicates proficiency in the language.
A plus (+) designation is added if the proficiency substantially
exceeds one skill level but does not fully meet the criteria for the
next level. Table 6 shows the language capabilities required for each
proficiency level.
Table 6: Foreign Language Capabilities at Proficiency Levels:
Proficiency level[B]: 0+[B]; Language capabilities[A]: Listening:
Understands certain memorized utterances in areas of immediate needs
with extra-linguistic cues; Language capabilities[A]: Reading: Reads
alphabet or high-frequency characters; recognizes some numbers and
isolated words; Language capabilities[A]: Speaking: Produces
telegraphic utterances for immediate survival needs.
Proficiency level[B]: 1; Language capabilities[A]: Listening:
Understands basic survival utterances, simple questions and answers on
familiar topics, and main ideas; Language capabilities[A]: Reading:
Reads simple, predictable material in print or type, identifies general
topics; Language capabilities[A]: Speaking: Maintains very simple
conversations on familiar topics; cannot produce continuous discourse
unless rehearsed.
Proficiency level[B]: 2; Language capabilities[A]: Listening:
Understands routine conversations and discourse about familiar topics;
gleans all the facts; Language capabilities[A]: Reading: Reads simple,
authentic, straightforward material on familiar topics; uses contextual
cues; Language capabilities[A]: Speaking: Handles routine, high-
frequency, limited interactions and conversations about current events,
family, and common topics.
Proficiency level[B]: 3; Language capabilities[A]: Listening:
Understands essentials of all speech; grasps opinion and inferences;
Language capabilities[A]: Reading: Reads a variety of prose on
unfamiliar subjects that may include opinions, hypothesis, and
analysis; Language capabilities[A]: Speaking: Participates
effectively in most formal and informal conversations about practical,
social, and professional topics within a shared context.
Proficiency level[B]: 4; Language capabilities[A]: Listening:
Understands all forms and styles of speech, even some nonstandard
dialects; develops and analyzes argumentation; Language
capabilities[A]: Reading: Reads fluently and accurately all styles and
forms; grasps full ramifications of texts within wider context;
Language capabilities[A]: Speaking: Uses the language fluently and
accurately for all purposes.
Proficiency level[B]: 5; Language capabilities[A]: Listening:
Understands extremely difficult and abstract speech and how natives
think as they create discourse; Language capabilities[A]: Reading:
Reads very difficult and abstract prose; Language capabilities[A]:
Speaking: Commands language with complete flexibility and intuition;
pronunciation consistent with that of an educated native speaker.
Source: Federal Interagency Language Roundtable.
[A] Language proficiency levels and capabilities are based on the
Interagency Language Roundtable standards. The table does not include a
description of the capabilities for writing.
[B] The 0+ exceeds the basic 0 proficiency level. Zero-level
proficiency indicates no capabilities in a foreign language.
[End of table]
Language proficiency levels are established for SOF personnel during
the U.S. Special Operations Command's biennial assessment of language
requirements, which is done in conjunction with geographic unified
commanders. The assessment identifies the languages, the proficiency
levels, and the number of individuals needed with these skills in the
commanders' geographic regions. Table 7 shows the required (minimum)
and the desired proficiency levels for each service component and
specialty. For example, Army SOF members who work in civil affairs
and psychological operations where they frequently interact with local
populations require a proficiency level of 2 for listening, reading,
and speaking. Army Special Forces, on the other hand, require only a
level 0+ to perform their missions, although a higher standard is
desired.
Table 7: U.S. Special Operations Command Proficiency Standards for
Service Components:
Service component and specialty: All/Intelligence; Proficiency level:
Required[A]: Listen/Read/Speak: 2/2/2;
Proficiency level: Desired: Listen/Read/Speak: 3/3/3.
Service component and specialty: U.S. Air Force Special Operations
Command; Proficiency level: Required[A]: Listen/Read/Speak: 2/2/2;
Proficiency level: Desired: Listen/Read/
Speak: 2/2/2.
Service component and specialty: U.S. Naval Special Warfare Command;
Proficiency level: Required[A]: Listen/Read/Speak: 2/2/2; Proficiency
level: Desired: Listen/Read/Speak: 2/2/2.
Service component and specialty: U.S. Army Special Operations Command
(Civil Affairs); Proficiency level: Required[A]: Listen/Read/Speak: 2/
2/2; Proficiency level: Desired: Listen/Read/Speak: 2/2/2.
Service component and specialty: U.S. Army Special Operations Command
(Special Forces); Proficiency level: Required[A]: Listen/Read/Speak:
0+/0+/0+; Proficiency level: Desired: Listen/Read/Speak: 1/2/2.
Service component and specialty: U.S. Army Special Operations Command
(Psychological Operations); Proficiency level: Required[A]: Listen/
Read/Speak: 2/2/2; Proficiency level: Desired: Listen/Read/Speak:
2/2/2.
Source: Special Operations Forces Language Office.
Note: Required and desired proficiency levels were established by the
command's current assessment of SOF language requirements.
[A] Personnel can meet the required proficiency by taking the Defense
Language Proficiency Test (listen/read), or an Oral Proficiency
Interview (speak) when the Defense Language Proficiency Test is not
available in a given language.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Status of the Language Services Contract between
the U.S. Special Operations Command and B.I.B. Consultants:
In accordance with its language services contract with the U.S. Special
Operations Command, B.I.B. Consultants is providing various types of
training for special operations forces personnel at each of the
command's service components. As shown in table 8, this training ranges
from language instruction, to beginning students with no foreign
language proficiency, to those students who have acquired some
proficiency. It consists of language study conducted in a traditional
classroom setting; one-on-one instructor/student training; and total
immersion training, where students practice their language(s) in a live
or virtual environment.[Footnote 35] The training also includes an
orientation of the customs, culture, and common phrases for the area
where the student's language is used.
Table 8: Foreign Language Training Provided by B.I.B. Consultants
Contract:
Training type: Initial acquisition; Purpose/Audience: Beginning
training for students that have no measurable proficiency level in a
particular foreign language; Environment: * Traditional classroom
setting; * Home-based, one-on-one instruction.
Training type: Sustainment; Purpose/Audience: Training for students
that already have acquired a specified proficiency level and need only
to maintain that level; Environment: * Traditional classroom setting;
* Home-based, one-on-one instruction; * Live or virtual immersion
training.
Training type: Enhancement; Purpose/Audience: Training to raise a
student's proficiency level; Environment: * Traditional classroom
setting; * Home-based, one-on-one instruction; * Live or virtual
immersion training.
Training type: Survival/Cultural orientation; Purpose/Audience:
Training to provide a basic understanding of customs, culture, and
common phrases for a world region. Conducted when course duration is
highly constrained by the training time available; Environment: *
Traditional classroom setting; * Home-based, one-on-one instruction;
* Live or virtual immersion training.
Source: Special Operations Forces Language Office.
[End of table]
During the first 9 months (October 2002 to July 2003) of the contract,
B.I.B. training varied at each of the SOF service components. For
example, from October 2002 to July 2003, B.I.B. conducted over 40
initial acquisition language classes for more than 500 students in 13
different languages at the Army's John F. Kennedy Special Warfare
Center and School at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. From January through
February 2003, B.I.B. also provided initial acquisition language
training for 10 students in three languages (3 classes) at the Navy's
Special Warfare Command's Group 1 at Coronado, California. According to
the Air Force command language program manager, B.I.B. is expected to
start providing initial acquisition language training for Air Force SOF
personnel at Hurlburt Field, Florida, where the Air Force recently
established a language-training lab. According to a B.I.B. contract
manager, B.I.B. has also provided 16 immersion sessions in various
languages for students in each of the service components as of the end-
of-July 2003 (9, 6, and 1, respectively, for the Navy, Army, and Air
Force).
According to a Special Operations Forces Language Office official,
students' proficiency scores after completing B.I.B.-taught classes at
the Army's school are about the same as those achieved under prior
contracts. Additionally, six students in an accelerated pilot class
achieved scores that met or exceeded the minimum proficiency
level.[Footnote 36] Our review of students' proficiency scores from all
the initial acquisition classes (a total of 22), including the Spanish
pilot course that began at the Army school during the first quarter of
fiscal year 2003, showed that 6 percent (11 students) of the 171
students did not meet the 0+ requirement for listening and 2 percent (4
students) did not meet the 0+ requirement for reading. (See fig. 1.)
However, all of those students did meet the alternate goal, which is to
attain at least a 0+ on an Oral Proficiency Interview. Although only a
small number of Navy SOF personnel have received training under the
B.I.B. contract, a Naval Special Warfare Command Group 1 official said
that students' proficiency scores from the first three B.I.B. initial
acquisition language classes (a total of 10 students) conducted from
January through February 2003 exceeded the results of classes conducted
under previous contracts.
Figure 1: Student Proficiency Score Results for Listening and Reading
for Initial Acquisition Language Courses at the Army's John F. Kennedy
Special Warfare Center and School for the First Quarter of Fiscal Year
2003:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Percentages may not total 100 percent because of rounding.
[End of figure]
We analyzed student end-of-course evaluations for about half of the
initial acquisition classes offered at the Army's school during the
first quarter of 2003.[Footnote 37] The evaluations were designed and
administered by B.I.B. Students were asked to rate their satisfaction
with (1) their progress, (2) the instructor, and (3) the usefulness of
the materials. As table 9 shows, most students said they were extremely
or very satisfied with their instructor's performance. Most students
also expressed some satisfaction with their progress and the usefulness
of course materials. However, it should be noted that 13 out of 77
evaluations indicated dissatisfaction with their progress, and 17 out
of 77 evaluations also indicated dissatisfaction with the usefulness of
the course materials. At the Army school, the Army, as required under
the B.I.B. contract, provides course materials.
Table 9: Student Evaluations Responses from Some Initial Acquisition
SOF Language Classes at the U.S. Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare
Center and School, Fort Bragg, North Carolina, during the First Quarter
of 2003:
Total number of classes; Initial acquisition language classes: A: 22;
Initial acquisition language classes: B: 3; Initial acquisition
language classes: C: 1; Initial acquisition language classes: D: 2;
Initial acquisition language classes: E[A]: 1; Initial acquisition
language classes: F: 1; Initial acquisition language classes: G: 2;
Initial acquisition language classes: H[B]: 1; Initial acquisition
language classes: I: 2; Initial acquisition language classes: J: 1;
Initial acquisition language classes: K: 2; Initial acquisition
language classes: L: 1; Initial acquisition language classes: M: 5.
Total number of students; Initial acquisition language classes: A: 180;
Initial acquisition language classes: B: 20; Initial acquisition
language classes: C: 7; Initial acquisition language classes: D: 16;
Initial acquisition language classes: E[A]: 7; Initial acquisition
language classes: F: 6; Initial acquisition language classes: G: 16;
Initial acquisition language classes: H[B]: 6; Initial acquisition
language classes: I: 24; Initial acquisition language classes: J: 8;
Initial acquisition language classes: K: 21; Initial acquisition
language classes: L: 8; Initial acquisition language classes: M: 41.
Number of classes with evaluations obtained; Initial acquisition
language classes: A: 11; Initial acquisition language classes: B: 3;
Initial acquisition language classes: C: 1; Initial acquisition
language classes: D: 2; Initial acquisition language classes: E[A]: 1;
Initial acquisition language classes: F: 1; Initial acquisition
language classes: G: 2; Initial acquisition language classes: H[B]: 1;
Initial acquisition language classes: I: 0; Initial acquisition
language classes: J: 0; Initial acquisition language classes: K: 0;
Initial acquisition language classes: L: 0; Initial acquisition
language classes: M: 0.
Number of evaluations obtained; Initial acquisition language classes:
A: 77; Initial acquisition language classes: B: 20; Initial acquisition
language classes: C: 7; Initial acquisition language classes: D: 16;
Initial acquisition language classes: E[A]: 7; Initial acquisition
language classes: F: 6; Initial acquisition language classes: G: 15;
Initial acquisition language classes: H[B]: 6; Initial acquisition
language classes: I: 0; Initial acquisition language classes: J: 0;
Initial acquisition language classes: K: 0; Initial acquisition
language classes: L: 0; Initial acquisition language classes: M: 0.
Student evaluation responses[C]:
Student progress:
Initial acquisition language classes:
Extremely/Very satisfied; Initial acquisition language classes: A: 30;
Initial acquisition language classes: B: 7; Initial acquisition
language classes: C: 0; Initial acquisition language classes: D: 5;
Initial acquisition language classes: E[A]: 0; Initial acquisition
language classes: F: 5; Initial acquisition language classes: G: 8;
Initial acquisition language classes: H[B]: 5; Initial acquisition
language classes: I: [Empty]; Initial acquisition language classes: J:
[Empty]; Initial acquisition language classes: K: [Empty]; Initial
acquisition language classes: L: [Empty]; Initial acquisition language
classes: M: [Empty].
Somewhat satisfied; Initial acquisition language classes: A: 34;
Initial acquisition language classes: B: 6; Initial acquisition
language classes: C: 5; Initial acquisition language classes: D: 10;
Initial acquisition language classes: E[A]: 5; Initial acquisition
language classes: F: 1; Initial acquisition language classes: G: 6;
Initial acquisition language classes: H[B]: 1; Initial acquisition
language classes: I: [Empty]; Initial acquisition language classes: J:
[Empty]; Initial acquisition language classes: K: [Empty]; Initial
acquisition language classes: L: [Empty]; Initial acquisition language
classes: M: [Empty].
Not very/not at all satisfied; Initial acquisition language classes: A:
13; Initial acquisition language classes: B: 7; Initial acquisition
language classes: C: 2; Initial acquisition language classes: D: 1;
Initial acquisition language classes: E[A]: 2; Initial acquisition
language classes: F: 0; Initial acquisition language classes: G: 1;
Initial acquisition language classes: H[B]: 0; Initial acquisition
language classes: I: [Empty]; Initial acquisition language classes: J:
[Empty]; Initial acquisition language classes: K: [Empty]; Initial
acquisition language classes: L: [Empty]; Initial acquisition language
classes: M: [Empty].
Instructor's performance:
Extremely/Very satisfied; Initial acquisition language classes: A: 64;
Initial acquisition language classes: B: 18; Initial acquisition
language classes: C: 2; Initial acquisition language classes: D: 13;
Initial acquisition language classes: E[A]: 6; Initial acquisition
language classes: F: 6; Initial acquisition language classes: G: 13;
Initial acquisition language classes: H[B]: 6; Initial acquisition
language classes: I: [Empty]; Initial acquisition language classes: J:
[Empty]; Initial acquisition language classes: K: [Empty]; Initial
acquisition language classes: L: [Empty]; Initial acquisition language
classes: M: [Empty].
Somewhat satisfied; Initial acquisition language classes: A: 8; Initial
acquisition language classes: B: 1; Initial acquisition language
classes: C: 3; Initial acquisition language classes: D: 3; Initial
acquisition language classes: E[A]: 0; Initial acquisition language
classes: F: 0; Initial acquisition language classes: G: 1; Initial
acquisition language classes: H[B]: 0; Initial acquisition language
classes: I: [Empty]; Initial acquisition language classes: J: [Empty];
Initial acquisition language classes: K: [Empty]; Initial acquisition
language classes: L: [Empty]; Initial acquisition language classes: M:
[Empty].
Not very/not at all satisfied; Initial acquisition language classes: A:
4; Initial acquisition language classes: B: 1; Initial acquisition
language classes: C: 2; Initial acquisition language classes: D: 0;
Initial acquisition language classes: E[A]: 0; Initial acquisition
language classes: F: 0; Initial acquisition language classes: G: 1;
Initial acquisition language classes: H[B]: 0; Initial acquisition
language classes: I: [Empty]; Initial acquisition language classes: J:
[Empty]; Initial acquisition language classes: K: [Empty]; Initial
acquisition language classes: L: [Empty]; Initial acquisition language
classes: M: [Empty].
Usefulness of materials:
Extremely/Very useful; Initial acquisition language classes: A: 24;
Initial acquisition language classes: B: 2; Initial acquisition
language classes: C: 1; Initial acquisition language classes: D: 6;
Initial acquisition language classes: E[A]: 2; Initial acquisition
language classes: F: 3; Initial acquisition language classes: G: 6;
Initial acquisition language classes: H[B]: 4; Initial acquisition
language classes: I: [Empty]; Initial acquisition language classes: J:
[Empty]; Initial acquisition language classes: K: [Empty]; Initial
acquisition language classes: L: [Empty]; Initial acquisition language
classes: M: [Empty].
Somewhat useful; Initial acquisition language classes: A: 35; Initial
acquisition language classes: B: 3; Initial acquisition language
classes: C: 6; Initial acquisition language classes: D: 10; Initial
acquisition language classes: E[A]: 5; Initial acquisition language
classes: F: 3; Initial acquisition language classes: G: 6; Initial
acquisition language classes: H[B]: 2; Initial acquisition language
classes: I: [Empty]; Initial acquisition language classes: J: [Empty];
Initial acquisition language classes: K: [Empty]; Initial acquisition
language classes: L: [Empty]; Initial acquisition language classes: M:
[Empty].
Not very/not at all useful; Initial acquisition language classes: A:
18; Initial acquisition language classes: B: 15; Initial acquisition
language classes: C: 0; Initial acquisition language classes: D: 0;
Initial acquisition language classes: E[A]: 0; Initial acquisition
language classes: F: 0; Initial acquisition language classes: G: 3;
Initial acquisition language classes: H[B]: 0; Initial acquisition
language classes: I: [Empty]; Initial acquisition language classes: J:
[Empty]; Initial acquisition language classes: K: [Empty]; Initial
acquisition language classes: L: [Empty]; Initial acquisition language
classes: M: [Empty].
Sources: U.S. Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School,
U.S. Army Special Operations Command (data); GAO (analysis).
Legend: A = All languages, B = Arabic, C = Korean, D = Russian, E =
Serbian, F = Turkish, G = Thai, H = Spanish pilot, I = French, J =
German, K = Indonesian, L = Pashtu, M = Spanish.
Note: We were not able to obtain student end-of-course evaluations for
11 classes in French, German, Indonesian, Spanish (other than the
Spanish pilot class), and Pashtu, and have therefore excluded these
classes from our analysis.
[A] One student (in a Serbian class) did not respond to "instructor
satisfaction" question.
[B] Spanish pilot class was taught using an accelerated class schedule.
[C] Student evaluations have been aggregated for languages where more
than one section of the same class was taught.
[End of table]
We also analyzed student end-of-course evaluations for three classes
taught by B.I.B. at the Naval Special Warfare Command's Group 1,
Coronado, California, during the second quarter 2003.[Footnote 38]
Unlike the Army, which used B.I.B.'s evaluation, the Navy designed and
administered its own evaluation. In these evaluations, students were
also asked to evaluate their courses in three areas: sufficient
instruction time; instructor's ability to effectively teach, and the
quality of instructional material. As table 10 indicates, all responses
rated the three areas as "excellent or good," with the exception of the
Indonesian class where two out of three students rated the "quality of
materials" as "average." Although only one of the three classes used
B.I.B. course materials as required by the contract, classes that
started in July 2003 are using the B.I.B.-provided materials.
Table 10: Student Evaluations Responses from Initial Acquisition SOF
Language Classes at Naval Special Warfare Command, Group I, Coronado,
California, during the Second Quarter of 2003:
Number of classes; Initial acquisition language classes: All languages:
3; Initial acquisition language classes: French[A]: 1; Initial
acquisition language classes: Indonesian: 1; Initial acquisition
language classes: Tagalog: 1.
Number of students; Initial acquisition language classes: All
languages: 10; Initial acquisition language classes: French[A]: 4;
Initial acquisition language classes: Indonesian: 4; Initial
acquisition language classes: Tagalog: 2.
Number of classes with evaluations obtained; Initial acquisition
language classes: All languages: 3; Initial acquisition language
classes: French[A]: 1; Initial acquisition language classes:
Indonesian: 1; Initial acquisition language classes: Tagalog: 1.
Number of evaluations obtained; Initial acquisition language classes:
All languages: 9; Initial acquisition language classes: French[A]: 4;
Initial acquisition language classes: Indonesian: 3; Initial
acquisition language classes: Tagalog: 2.
Student evaluation responses:
Sufficient instruction time:
Excellent/good; Initial acquisition language classes: All languages: 8;
Initial acquisition language classes: French[A]: 3; Initial acquisition
language classes: Indonesian: 3; Initial acquisition language classes:
Tagalog: 2.
Average; Initial acquisition language classes: All languages: 0;
Initial acquisition language classes: French[A]: 0; Initial acquisition
language classes: Indonesian: 0; Initial acquisition language classes:
Tagalog: 0.
Fair/poor; Initial acquisition language classes: All languages: 0;
Initial acquisition language classes: French[A]: 0; Initial acquisition
language classes: Indonesian: 0; Initial acquisition language classes:
Tagalog: 0.
Instructor's performance:
Excellent/good; Initial acquisition language classes: All languages: 9;
Initial acquisition language classes: French[A]: 4; Initial acquisition
language classes: Indonesian: 3; Initial acquisition language classes:
Tagalog: 2.
Average; Initial acquisition language classes: All languages: 0;
Initial acquisition language classes: French[A]: 0; Initial acquisition
language classes: Indonesian: 0; Initial acquisition language classes:
Tagalog: 0.
Fair/poor; Initial acquisition language classes: All languages: 0;
Initial acquisition language classes: French[A]: 0; Initial acquisition
language classes: Indonesian: 0; Initial acquisition language classes:
Tagalog: 0.
Quality of materials:
Excellent/good; Initial acquisition language classes: All languages: 7;
Initial acquisition language classes: French[A]: 4; Initial acquisition
language classes: Indonesian: 1; Initial acquisition language classes:
Tagalog: 2.
Average; Initial acquisition language classes: All languages: 2;
Initial acquisition language classes: French[A]: 0; Initial acquisition
language classes: Indonesian: 2; Initial acquisition language classes:
Tagalog: 0.
Fair/poor; Initial acquisition language classes: All languages: 0;
Initial acquisition language classes: French[A]: 0; Initial acquisition
language classes: Indonesian: 0; Initial acquisition language classes:
Tagalog: 0.
Sources: Naval Special Warfare Command, Group I, Coronado, Calif.,
(data); GAO (analysis).
[A] One student did not respond to the question, "sufficient
instruction time.":
[End of table]
We did not review student evaluations at the U.S. Air Force Special
Operations Command because no classes were completed during the time we
conducted our work.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Defense:
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE:
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20301-2500:
SPECIAL OPERATIONS/LOW-INTENSITY CONFLICT:
Mr. Neal P. Curtin:
Director United States General Accounting Office Washington, D.C.
20548:
Dear Mr. Curtin:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the General Accounting
Office's draft report on Special Operations Forces Foreign Language
Program (GAO-03-1026). Enclosed are our comments which we request to
have included in the final report to Congress.
Michael A. Westphal
DASD SO&CT:
Signed by Michael A. Westphal:
Encl.
GAO DRAFT REPORT - DATED AUGUST 19, 2003 GAO CODE 350276/GAO-03-1026:
"MILITARY TRAINING: Strategic Planning and Distributive Learning Could
Benefit Special Operations Forces Foreign Language Program":
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE COMMENTS TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS:
RECOMMENDATION 1: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Commander of the U.S. Special Operations Command to adopt
the strategy it has drafted for meeting special operations forces'
foreign language requirements and develop the necessary strategic-
planning tools (a strategic plan with associated performance plan and
reports) to use in managing and assessing the progress of its foreign
language program and to better address future human capital challenges.
(Page 26/GAO Draft Report):
DoD RESPONSE: Non-concur. USSOCOM's strategy for meeting special
operations forces' foreign language requirements is still in its
infancy. Their strategy still needs to be properly staffed through the
Joint Staff, OSD and the services before the SecDef would direct
COMUSSOCOM to adopt it.
RECOMMENDATION 2: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Commander of the U.S. Special Operations Command to
incorporate distant-/ and distributive-learning approaches into the
program to improve the special operations forces' access to language
training, and if additional resources are required, to request them.
(Page 26/GAO Draft Report):
DoD RESPONSE: Concur. Due to the unique working environment of Special
Operations Forces, distant/distributive-learning should be included as
part of their language training program. Computer-delivered language
training programs will provide an accessible and portable method of on-
demand language learning and language maintenance tools while deployed.
RECOMMENDATION 3: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense
should evaluate current (1) foreign language proficiency pay rates and
(2) pay and allowance funding levels for Army Reserve and National
Guard personnel to determine if changes are needed to provide them with
a greater incentive to undertake language study and allow for more
personnel to attend language schools and other training venues. (Page
26/GAO Draft Report):
DoD RESPONSE: Concur.
RECOMMENDATION 4: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense
should examine options for increasing the use and availability of oral
proficiency foreign language
testing to provide additional opportunities for SOF personnel to test
and qualify in their respective languages. (Page 26/GAO Draft Report):
DoD RESPONSE: Concur.
Note: Comments were received from the Department of Defense on
September 26, 2003.
Note: Page numbers in the draft report may differ from those in this
report.
[End of section]
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Contact:
Clifton E. Spruill (202) 512-4531:
Acknowledgments:
In addition to the individual named above, Mark J. Wielgoszynski,
Marie A. Mak, Corinna A. Wengryn, Nancy L. Benco, and Deborah Long made
key contributions to this report.
FOOTNOTES
[1] The U.S. Special Operations Command, located at MacDill Air Force
Base, Fla., is one of nine unified commands in the U.S. military's
combatant command structure and is responsible for all special
operations forces. The command's organization includes three service
component commands: the U.S Army Special Operations Command, Fort
Bragg, N.C; the U.S. Naval Special Warfare Command, Coronado, Calif;
and the U.S. Air Force Special Operations Command, Hurlburt Field, Fla.
[2] Most DOD personnel acquire their foreign language training through
the Defense Foreign Language Program. The Department of the Army, the
program's executive agent, manages and oversees the program. The
Defense Language Institute is the primary educational facility for
DOD's language training. While the SOF foreign language program
provides most of its training separately from the Defense Foreign
Language Program, the SOF program can use DOD and other government-
language-training resources to fulfill its needs.
[3] U.S. Senate, Committee on Armed Services, National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 Report, Senate Report 107-151
(Washington, D.C.: 2002).
[4] See hearings before the Subcommittee on International Security,
Proliferation, and Federal Services, Committee on Governmental Affairs,
U.S. Senate, on The State of Foreign Language Capabilities in National
Security and the Federal Government (Sept. 14 and 19, 2000).
[5] To address current and projected shortages in staff with foreign
language skills, we recommended that the Secretary of the Army develop
a comprehensive strategic approach to human capital management and
workforce planning. See U.S. General Accounting Office, Foreign
Languages: Human Capital Approach Needed to Correct Staffing and
Proficiency Shortfalls, GAO-02-375 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 31, 2002)
and Foreign Languages: Workforce Planning Could Help to Address
Staffing and Proficiency Shortfalls, GAO-02-514T (Washington, D.C.:
Mar. 12, 2002).
[6] DOD Directive 3305.6, Special Operations Forces Foreign Language
Policy (Jan. 4, 1993), assigns responsibility to the Commander, U.S.
Special Operations Command, for implementing special operations forces'
foreign language training and reporting.
[7] The operational units of the SOF service components run over 100
command language programs to provide initial, sustainment, and
enhancement foreign language training for their people.
[8] Personnel who have language requirements in active-duty U.S. Army
Special Operations Command units serve in special forces; those in Army
Reserve and National Guard units serve in civil affairs, psychological
operations, and special forces; those in active-duty U.S. Naval Special
Warfare Command units serve as SEALS and in special boat units; and
those in active-duty U.S. Air Force Special Operations units function
in foreign internal defense.
[9] Geographic unified commanders of the U.S. Central Command, U.S.
European Command, U.S. Northern Command, U.S. Pacific Command, and U.S.
Southern Command are responsible for the conduct of military operations
in their respective world regions.
[10] The Nunn-Cohen Amendment to the DOD Authorization Act of 1986,
Pub. L. No. 99-661, which created the U.S. Special Operations Command,
gave the command direct control over many of the fiscal resources
necessary to pay, train, equip, and deploy special operations forces
through the establishment of a separate major force program (a major
budget category in DOD's budget).
[11] B.I.B. Consultants is a small business franchise of Berlitz
International established in 1998. Its daily operations are located at
the Berlitz Language Center, Orlando, Fla. Berlitz International is a
worldwide provider of language training and cross-cultural services to
government, private-sector industries, and nonprofit organizations.
Founded in 1878, the company has more than 450 language centers in over
60 countries and is accredited by the American Council on Education and
the Accrediting Council for Continued Education and Training. Because
of the size and complexity of its contract with the command and the
need for worldwide language training, B.I.B. has awarded a subcontract
to Berlitz International to utilize its language services.
[12] The contract has a maximum ceiling of $50 million over its 5-year
life.
[13] Tactical language training covers instruction in foreign language
translations of specific military and technical words/terms used by SOF
personnel in conducting missions. Such training is not a requirement of
the B.I.B. contract.
[14] SCOLA is a nonprofit broadcast network based in McClelland, Iowa,
that provides real-time transmission of copyright-free foreign news and
cultural programming in over 40 languages from about 60 countries via
satellite.
[15] U.S. Special Operations Command Directive 350-10, Special
Operations Forces Foreign Language Program (Nov. 14, 2001). This
directive superseded the directive dated April 7, 1998, which also
called for development of a long range SOF language strategy.
[16] Pub. L. No. 103-62, Aug. 3, 1993.
[17] We have issued several reports and guidance on strategic human
capital management: U.S. General Accounting Office, High Risk Series:
An Update, GAO-01-263 (Washington, D.C.: January 2001); Human Capital:
Major Human Capital Challenges at the Departments of Defense and State,
GAO-01-565T (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 29, 2001); Human Capital: A Self-
Assessment Checklist for Agency Leaders, GAO/OGC-00-14G (Washington,
D.C.: September 2000) and Military Personnel: Oversight Process Needed
to Help Maintain Momentum of DOD's Strategic Human Capital Planning,
GAO-03-237 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 5, 2002).
[18] See U.S. General Accounting Office, Human Capital: A Guide for
Assessing Strategic Training and Development Efforts in the Federal
Government (exposure draft), GAO-03-893G (Washington, D.C.: July 2003).
[19] Most of these soldiers are assigned to psychological operations
and civil affairs units where language proficiencies are critical
because of their close and frequent interaction with the local
populace.
[20] At a proficiency level of 2, an individual is capable of meeting
routine social demands and limited job requirements and can deal with
concrete topics in the past, present, and future tenses. Appendix II
contains a description of the levels.
[21] Foreign Language Proficiency Pay is provided to military personnel
under 37 U.S.C. 316. The law specifies that reserve personnel who are
not on active duty be paid at one-thirtieth of the monthly proficiency
pay multiplied by the number of drills during a month (usually four).
Therefore, if active-duty personnel receive $100 each month
for language proficiency, reserve and guard personnel would receive
$3.33 per drill ($100 divided by 30) or $13.33 each month for four
drills.
[22] The Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation is conducted every
4 years to assess the effectiveness of military pay and benefits in
recruiting and retaining a high-quality force. See Department of
Defense, Report of The Ninth Quadrennial Review of Military
Compensation (Washington, D.C.: May 17, 2002).
[23] Pay and allowance is a person's basic pay, special pay, incentive
pay, basic allowance for quarters, basic allowance for subsistence, and
station per diem allowance for not more than 90 days.
[24] These statistics are derived from SOFLO's newly created database,
and the mechanisms for collecting the data and ensuring reliability are
still being worked out.
[25] Language training data for the quarter ending in June 2003 was
similar to the prior quarter: 11,180 SOF personnel, or 92 percent of
the 12,116 of those who had a language requirement, needed to take
either initial or sustainment training.
[26] SOF personnel are qualified after successfully passing the
language proficiency test and remain qualified until the time of their
next test 12 months later.
[27] DOD uses the Defense Language Proficiency Test and the Oral
Proficiency Interview to measure an individual's language skills. Both
tests are administered through the Defense Language Institute.
[28] Oral testers have native fluency in a language and are trained and
certified by the Defense Language Institute to administer the Oral
Proficiency Interview.
[29] The Department of the Army is consolidating Army Regulations 611-
6, Army Linguist Management, and 350-16, Total Army Language Program,
into a single new Army language regulation.
[30] Advanced distributive learning is instruction that does not
require an instructor's presence; can use more than one medium; and
emphasizes the use of reusable content, networks, and learning
management systems.
[31] See Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness, Department of Defense, Strategic Plan for Transforming DOD
Training (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 1, 2002).
[32] For further information on the status of DOD's advanced
distributed learning programs, see U.S. General Accounting Office,
Military Transformation: Progress and Challenges for DOD's Advanced
Distributed Learning Programs, GAO-03-393 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 28,
2003).
[33] SOFLO's language database has been operational for only a short
time, and the mechanisms for collecting the data and ensuring
reliability are still being worked out. SOFLO also acknowledges that
there may be some administrative underreporting of data. However, from
our discussions with SOFLO officials about their current data
collection and verification procedures, we believe the data to be
sufficiently reliable.
[34] The Interagency Language Roundtable is an unfunded federal
interagency organization established for the coordination and sharing
of information about language-related activities at the federal level.
It serves as the premier way for departments and agencies of the
federal government to keep abreast of the progress and implementation
of techniques and technology for language learning, language use,
language testing, and other language-related activities.
[35] Total immersion in a live environment involves students' going to
the country where the language to be learned is spoken. Total immersion
in a virtual environment involves training in an isolated environment
in the United States, and only the language to be learned is spoken.
[36] The accelerated pilot class in Spanish was conducted for 10 weeks
instead of the regular 18 weeks with the goal of having students
achieve language proficiency faster. B.I.B. Consultants, the U.S. Army
John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School, and SOFLO plan to
conduct additional accelerated pilot classes in other languages.
[37] We requested end-of-course evaluations from all SOF language
classes conducted by B.I.B. Consultants during the first quarter of
fiscal year 2003 at the U.S. Army Special Warfare Center and School,
but the Army's school provided only 77 student end-of-course
evaluations for 11 (of a total of 22) classes for 7 (of a total of 11)
languages. Because we were not able to obtain all student end-of-course
evaluations, the missing evaluations may have different responses from
those that did respond and were provided to GAO.
[38] We requested student end-of-course evaluations for all classes
conducted at the Naval Special Warfare Command's Group 1 by B.I.B. in
the second quarter of fiscal year 2003. We received evaluations for 9
students (of a total of 10) from three classes across three languages.
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:
