Language and Culture Training
Opportunities Exist to Improve Visibility and Sustainment of Knowledge and Skills in Army and Marine Corps General Purpose Forces Gao ID: GAO-12-50 October 31, 2011The Department of Defense (DOD) has emphasized the importance of developing language skills and knowledge of foreign cultures to meet current and future needs and is investing millions of dollars to provide language and culture predeployment training to its general purpose forces. DOD has also noted that such training should be viewed as a long-term investment and that training and personnel systems should better account for the knowledge and skills of service members acquired through training to help manage its forces. The committee report accompanying a proposed bill for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 5136) directed GAO to review language and culture training for Army and Marine Corps general purpose forces. For this report, GAO evaluated the extent to which these services (1) captured information in training and personnel systems on the completion of language and culture predeployment training and proficiency gained from training and (2) developed plans to sustain language skills acquired through predeployment training. GAO analyzed service documents and interviewed cognizant officials.
The Army and Marine Corps have documented some information at the unit level for service members who completed language and culture predeployment training, but the services have not fully captured information within service-level training and personnel systems on service members who completed training or their corresponding proficiency. DOD and service guidance require the services to document language and culture training completion and proficiency gained from training in service-level systems. However, GAO identified several factors that limited the services' ability to implement this guidance. For example, the Army's primary training system did not have data fields for all mandatory language and culture tasks and, as a result, units were unable to document the completion of this training. In addition, while the Army collects some language proficiency data within its primary personnel system, the Army considers these data unreliable because of weaknesses in its approach to collecting them. To improve the accuracy of information within this system, the Army established a task force in January 2011, which has identified a number of key tasks and is at varying stages of completing its work. The Marine Corps did not document language and culture predeployment training completion in any servicewide training or personnel system and a system has not been designated for this purpose. Further, the Marine Corps had not required marines who completed significant language training to take formal proficiency tests and, therefore, the service did not have language proficiency data for these marines. By not capturing information within service-level training and personnel systems on the training that general purpose forces have completed and the language proficiency gained from training, the Army and Marine Corps do not have the information they need to effectively leverage the language and culture knowledge and skills of these forces when making individual assignments and assessing future operational needs. The Army and Marine Corps have not developed plans to sustain language skills already acquired through predeployment training. The services have made considerable investments to provide some service members with extensive predeployment language training. For example, as of July 2011, over 800 soldiers have completed about 16 weeks of Afghan language training since 2010 at a cost of about $12 million. DOD and service guidance address the need to sustain language skills and the DOD strategic plan for language, regional, and culture skills calls for the services to build on existing language skills for future needs. However, we found that the services had not yet determined which service members require follow-on language training to sustain skills, the amount of training required, or appropriate mechanisms to deliver the training. Although informal follow-on training programs were available to sustain language skills, such as computer-based training, these programs were voluntary. In the absence of formal sustainment training programs to maintain and build upon service members' language skills, the Army and Marine Corps may miss opportunities to capitalize on the investments they have already made to provide predeployment language training for ongoing operations. GAO made recommendations intended to improve the availability of information on training completion and proficiency and help DOD plan for sustainment training. DOD generally agreed with the recommendations, but stated that the definition of significant language training was not intended to describe training for initial skills. However, DOD noted that current guidance does not preclude language proficiency testing at this stage.
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: Sharon L. Pickup Team: Government Accountability Office: Defense Capabilities and Management Phone: (202) 512-9619GAO-12-50, Language and Culture Training: Opportunities Exist to Improve Visibility and Sustainment of Knowledge and Skills in Army and Marine Corps General Purpose Forces
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-12-50
entitled 'Language and Culture Training: Opportunities Exist to
Improve Visibility and Sustainment of Knowledge and Skills in Army and
Marine Corps General Purpose Forces' which was released on October 31,
2011.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
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.
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
Report to Congressional Committees:
October 2011:
Language and Culture Training:
Opportunities Exist to Improve Visibility and Sustainment of Knowledge
and Skills in Army and Marine Corps General Purpose Forces:
GAO-12-50:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-12-50, a report to congressional committees.
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Department of Defense (DOD) has emphasized the importance of
developing language skills and knowledge of foreign cultures to meet
current and future needs and is investing millions of dollars to
provide language and culture predeployment training to its general
purpose forces. DOD has also noted that such training should be viewed
as a long-term investment and that training and personnel systems
should better account for the knowledge and skills of service members
acquired through training to help manage its forces. The committee
report accompanying a proposed bill for the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 5136) directed GAO to
review language and culture training for Army and Marine Corps general
purpose forces. For this report, GAO evaluated the extent to which
these services (1) captured information in training and personnel
systems on the completion of language and culture predeployment
training and proficiency gained from training and (2) developed plans
to sustain language skills acquired through predeployment training.
GAO analyzed service documents and interviewed cognizant officials.
What GAO Found:
The Army and Marine Corps have documented some information at the unit
level for service members who completed language and culture
predeployment training, but the services have not fully captured
information within service-level training and personnel systems on
service members who completed training or their corresponding
proficiency. DOD and service guidance require the services to document
language and culture training completion and proficiency gained from
training in service-level systems. However, GAO identified several
factors that limited the services‘ ability to implement this guidance.
For example, the Army‘s primary training system did not have data
fields for all mandatory language and culture tasks and, as a result,
units were unable to document the completion of this training. In
addition, while the Army collects some language proficiency data
within its primary personnel system, the Army considers these data
unreliable because of weaknesses in its approach to collecting them.
To improve the accuracy of information within this system, the Army
established a task force in January 2011, which has identified a
number of key tasks and is at varying stages of completing its work.
The Marine Corps did not document language and culture predeployment
training completion in any servicewide training or personnel system
and a system has not been designated for this purpose. Further, the
Marine Corps had not required marines who completed significant
language training to take formal proficiency tests and, therefore, the
service did not have language proficiency data for these marines. By
not capturing information within service-level training and personnel
systems on the training that general purpose forces have completed and
the language proficiency gained from training, the Army and Marine
Corps do not have the information they need to effectively leverage
the language and culture knowledge and skills of these forces when
making individual assignments and assessing future operational needs.
The Army and Marine Corps have not developed plans to sustain language
skills already acquired through predeployment training. The services
have made considerable investments to provide some service members
with extensive predeployment language training. For example, as of
July 2011, over 800 soldiers have completed about 16 weeks of Afghan
language training since 2010 at a cost of about $12 million. DOD and
service guidance address the need to sustain language skills and the
DOD strategic plan for language, regional, and culture skills calls
for the services to build on existing language skills for future
needs. However, GAO found that the services had not yet determined
which service members require follow-on language training to sustain
skills, the amount of training required, or appropriate mechanisms to
deliver the training. Although informal follow-on training programs
were available to sustain language skills, such as computer-based
training, these programs were voluntary. In the absence of formal
sustainment training programs to maintain and build upon service
members‘ language skills, the Army and Marine Corps may miss
opportunities to capitalize on the investments they have already made
to provide predeployment language training for ongoing operations.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO made recommendations intended to improve the availability of
information on training completion and proficiency and help DOD plan
for sustainment training. DOD generally agreed with the
recommendations, but stated that the definition of significant
language training was not intended to describe training for initial
skills. However, DOD noted that current guidance does not preclude
language proficiency testing at this stage.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-50]. For more
information, contact Sharon Pickup at (202) 512-9619 or
pickups@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
Army and Marine Corps Have Captured Limited Information on Language
and Culture Predeployment Training for Ongoing Operations:
Army and Marine Corps Have Not Developed Plans to Sustain Language
Skills Already Acquired through Predeployment Training:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Selected Army and Marine Corps Training and Personnel Systems
and Other DOD Information Systems:
Table 2: Selected Afghan Language Training Program Enrollments and
Costs Since 2009:
Figures:
Figure 1: Selected Strategic Documents that Emphasize the Need for
Language and Culture Knowledge and Skills:
Figure 2: Language Training Detachments Intended for General Purpose
Forces on Army and Marine Corps Installations:
Figure 3: Examples of Limitations in the Army's Ability to Capture
Information within Training and Personnel Systems on Completion of
Language and Culture Predeployment Training and Corresponding Language
Proficiency:
Abbreviations:
DOD: Department of Defense:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
October 31, 2011:
The Honorable Carl Levin:
Chairman:
The Honorable John McCain:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Armed Services:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Howard P. "Buck" McKeon:
Chairman:
The Honorable Adam Smith:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Armed Services:
House of Representatives:
Due to changes in the global security environment and operational
experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Department of Defense (DOD)
has emphasized the importance of developing language skills and
knowledge of foreign cultures to meet the needs of current and future
military operations. It is DOD's policy that language and culture
training be embedded in initial military training, professional
military education, and predeployment training and integrated across
the total force.[Footnote 1] DOD has emphasized that it should better
account for the language and culture knowledge and skills of service
members within the department's personnel management systems. These
systems, which include training and personnel systems, are used at the
service level to manage individual assignments and also provide senior
leaders at the service and department level with visibility over the
capabilities of military personnel. DOD has also stated that language
and culture training must be valued as a long-term investment and is
investing millions of dollars to provide such training to general
purpose forces for ongoing military operations and to prepare these
forces for future missions. For example, in December 2009, the Office
of the Secretary of Defense directed the Army to include a total of
about $160 million in its budget submissions for fiscal years 2011
through 2015 to establish and maintain language training detachments
on selected military installations across the services to teach
foreign languages to military and civilian personnel including those
who are preparing for deployments to Afghanistan.
In prior reports, we have identified various management challenges
that DOD faces in developing language and culture capabilities, and
made several related recommendations.[Footnote 2] In June 2009, we
recommended that DOD develop a strategic plan that includes measurable
performance goals and objectives and investment priorities and a
validated methodology for identifying language and regional
proficiency requirements, including cultural awareness, and in May
2011, we recommended that DOD establish a defined planning process to
align the services' language and culture training efforts. DOD has
taken some steps to address our recommendations. For example, in
February 2011, DOD published the Department of Defense Strategic Plan
for Language Skills, Regional Expertise, and Cultural Capabilities
(2011-2016), but stated that a more detailed implementation plan would
be issued separately. In particular, DOD noted that its implementation
plan will include a clearly defined planning process for working with
the military departments to coordinate and synchronize plans with the
department's strategic goals and resources. As of September 2011, DOD
is continuing to develop the implementation plan.
The committee report accompanying a proposed bill for the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 5136) directed us
to review a number of issues related to language and culture training
for Army and Marine Corps general purpose forces.[Footnote 3] As
discussed above, our May 2011 report examined the Army's and Marine
Corps' strategic planning efforts for language and culture
capabilities and the department's approach for identifying language
and culture training requirements for Army and Marine Corps general
purpose forces deploying to the U.S. Central Command area of
responsibility.[Footnote 4] For this report, we evaluated the extent
to which the Army and Marine Corps have (1) captured information in
service-level training and personnel systems on the completion of
language and culture predeployment training and proficiency gained
from this training and (2) developed plans to sustain language skills
acquired through predeployment training.
For the first objective, we focused on Army and Marine Corps language
and culture training programs administered since 2009 to prepare
general purpose forces for ongoing operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Therefore, for this review, we excluded training programs for language
and regional experts (e.g., foreign area officers and intelligence
specialists) and special operations forces. We reviewed information
available in service-level training and personnel systems and
department-level information systems on service members' completion of
language and culture training and the corresponding acquisition of
skills--specifically, the time frame when this training occurred and
the proficiency service members gained from training. We defined
"proficiency" using DOD's agreed-upon method for measuring it.
[Footnote 5] We conducted interviews with Army and Marine Corps
officials who are responsible for developing predeployment training
programs and documenting information on training completion in service-
level training and personnel systems. We also discussed the extent to
which the services used these systems to record service members'
proficiency gained from this training, in particular the training that
meets DOD's definition of significant language training.[Footnote 6]
We also interviewed officials with Army and Marine Corps units that
were participating in predeployment training and units that were
deployed in Afghanistan at the time of our review to discuss the
extent to which they used service-level training and personnel systems
and other processes to document the completion of language and culture
training and any proficiency gained from training. We assessed the
Army's and Marine Corps' efforts in light of DOD guidance that
requires that the services document all language and regional
proficiency training, education, and experience in training and
personnel systems and Army and Marine Corps documents that note that
language and culture training completion and corresponding proficiency
should be documented in service-level systems[Footnote 7].:
For the second objective, we interviewed Army and Marine Corps
training officials to discuss the extent to which the services had
developed plans and specific training programs for general purpose
forces to sustain language skills acquired through predeployment
training. We interviewed officials with Army and Marine Corps units
that were participating in predeployment training and units that were
deployed in Afghanistan at the time of our review to discuss any
formal programs used by service members to sustain skills acquired
through language training. We also discussed other informal training
programs that were available to service members to sustain language
skills. To gain an understanding of the investments already made in
predeployment language training, we collected information from service
training officials on the number of soldiers and marines completing
predeployment language training from January 2009 through July 2011,
the amount of time spent in training, and the cost of these training
programs. To ensure the reliability of our data, we interviewed
knowledgeable officials about the data and internal controls on the
systems that contain them. We determined that the data were
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this audit. We reviewed Army
and Marine Corps training programs and plans in light of DOD and
service guidance that address the need to sustain language skills and
the DOD strategic plan for language, regional, and culture skills that
calls for the services to build on existing language skills for future
needs.[Footnote 8]
We conducted this performance audit from June 2010 to October 2011 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. A more
detailed discussion of our scope and methodology can be found in
appendix I.
Background:
Today, and in the foreseeable future, military operations require U.S.
personnel, in particular Army and Marine Corps ground forces, to
communicate and interact with multinational partners and local
populations. DOD, and the Army and Marine Corps, have emphasized the
need to build and sustain language and culture knowledge and skills in
the general purpose forces. The Army and Marine Corps are providing
language and culture predeployment training in support of ongoing
operations. DOD relies on formal tests to measure service members'
proficiency in a foreign language. Various training and personnel
systems exist within DOD at the service and department level.
DOD and Service-Level Guidance on Building and Sustaining Language and
Culture Knowledge and Skills:
Departmentwide and service-level strategic plans and operating
concepts emphasize the need to build and sustain language and culture
knowledge and skills in the general purpose forces (see figure 1).
Figure 1: Selected Strategic Documents that Emphasize the Need for
Language and Culture Knowledge and Skills:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
Selected Departmentwide Strategies:
2010 Quadrennial Defense Review:
’U.S. forces would be able to perform their missions more effectively”-
both in the near-term and against future adversaries”-if they had more
and better key enabling capabilities at their disposal. These enablers
include...foreign language expertise...“
2010 Strategic Plan for the Next Generation of Training for the
Department of Defense:
Establishes 17 training focus areas, one of which is to markedly
increase language, regional, and cultural capabilities and capacities
including developing an education and training capability that
contributes to a culturally aware and linguistically adept total force.
Army and Marine Corps Operating Concepts:
Army:
The United States Army Operating Concept 2016-2028 states that the
Army will provide combatant commands with regionally aligned and
specially trained forces with competence in the languages, cultures,
history, governments, security forces, and threats in areas where
conflict is likely.
Marine Corps:
Marine Corps Operating Concepts notes that the Marine Corps is
examining regionalization of major headquarters and force provider
commands by focusing them on the combatant commands with individual
marines and specific units developing intellectual focus, cultural
knowledge, and operational expertise on a specific geographic region.
Specific Language and Culture Strategies:
DOD:
Department of Defense Strategic Plan for Language Skills, Regional
Expertise, and Cultural Capabilities (2011-2016) states that the plan
is an important cornerstone in building a comprehensive, integrated
approach toward increasing and sustaining language skills, regional
expertise, and cultural capabilities within DOD.
Army:
Army Culture and Foreign Language Strategy provides a strategy for
present and future culture and foreign language education and training
programs needed to close gaps in capabilities with an end state to
build and sustain an Army with the right blend of culture and foreign
language capabilities to facilitate full spectrum operations.
Marine Corps:
Marine Corps Language, Regional and Culture Strategy: 2011-2015 seeks to
institutionalize current Marine Corps efforts to grow and sustain the
language, regional, and culture capability as an enduring, steady-state
requirement throughout the service.
Source: GAO analysis of DOD data.
[End of figure]
In particular, referring both to the near-term needs of current
operations and the long-term efforts to prepare military forces for
future conflicts, DOD concluded in the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review
that U.S. forces would be able to perform their missions more
effectively with more and better key enabling capabilities, including
language expertise. The Army and Marine Corps have also developed
concepts to align headquarters and forces with geographic commands
around the world and plan to provide them with specialized language
and culture training prior to deployment to conduct security force
assistance and irregular warfare missions, among others. In addition,
the services are implementing strategies to build and reinforce
language and culture knowledge and skills through training at various
points of a service member's career through formal service
institutions, such as professional military education schools, and
during predeployment training. For example:
* Beginning in 2009, the Army Command and General Staff College began
offering language courses to soldiers in targeted languages, such as
Arabic, Chinese, and French, which consist of resident instruction,
self-study, and distance learning in a modified year-long program. In
addition, the Army updated its Captains Career Course in 2010 to
include 13 hours of training in the areas of cross-cultural skill
building and negotiations.
* The Marine Corps has begun implementing the Regional, Culture, and
Language Familiarization career development program for all marines
that begins when marines enter military service and continues
throughout their career. As part of the program, marines are assigned
to 1 of 17 regions around the world and will be assigned an associated
language. The program is organized into three broad areas of training
(culture general, culture specific, and language familiarization) and
functionally organized within a block structure that builds and
reinforces knowledge and skills over a marine's career.
Language and Culture Predeployment Training and Proficiency Testing
for General Purpose Forces Preparing for Ongoing Operations:
As we have previously reported, the Army and the Marine Corps have
established service-specific predeployment training requirements and
are providing their respective general purpose forces with language
and culture training that is focused on the particular area to which a
unit will deploy.[Footnote 9] Given that over the past 10 years Army
and Marine Corps forces have experienced continual operational
deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan with limited time to prepare
between deployments, most language and culture training efforts have
focused on predeployment training for ongoing operations.
For example, since July 2010, the Army has required that all soldiers
deploying to Afghanistan and Iraq complete a 4-to 6-hour online
training program that provides basic language and culture training.
[Footnote 10] In addition, commanders are required to designate at
least one leader per platoon who will have regular contact with a
local population to complete 16 weeks (at least 480 hours) of on-site
training at one of five language training detachments on Army
installations. If the designated leader does not have access to a
language training detachment, that soldier is required to complete
approximately 100 hours of computer-based training. Since February
2010, the Marine Corps has required that all deploying marines
complete culture training which, for Afghanistan deployments, service
officials reported typically consists of 1 day of training, and
selected marines have been required to complete language training with
the amount determined by a mission analysis.[Footnote 11] Selected
marines can complete this training at one of two language training
detachments on Marine Corps installations or through programs at a
local community college and university. Language training detachments
on Army and Marine Corps installations provide predeployment training
that includes role playing, classroom instruction, and self-directed
learning (see figure 2).
Figure 2: Language Training Detachments Intended for General Purpose
Forces on Army and Marine Corps Installations:
Refer to PDF for image: illustrated U.S. map and 3 photographs]
Army installations:
Fort Bragg, North Carolina;
Fort Campbell, Kentucky;
Fort Drum, New York;
Schofield Barracks, Hawaii.
Marine Corps installation:
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina;
Camp Pendleton, California.
Types of language training:
Role playing;
Classroom instruction;
Self-directed learning.
Source: GAO; U.S. Army (photos); Map Resources (map).
[End of figure]
DOD relies on the Defense Language Proficiency Test system of tests to
measure an individual's proficiency in a foreign language. The test is
administered in a Web-based format to measure proficiency in the
listening and/or reading modalities. The speaking modality is tested
in person or by telephone. Test scores are reported as Interagency
Language Roundtable skill levels measured on a scale from 0 (no
proficiency) to 5 (functionally native proficiency). DOD guidance also
establishes broad regional proficiency skill level guidelines[Footnote
12]. These guidelines include culture knowledge and skills and are
intended to provide DOD components with benchmarks for assessing
regional proficiency needs, for developing initial and sustainment
regional proficiency curricula at service and professional military
education schools, and for assessing regional proficiency
capabilities. Our prior work has found that DOD has not yet
established a way to test or otherwise evaluate the culture knowledge
and skills of service members in accordance with these guidelines.
[Footnote 13]
Various Service-and Department-Level Training and Personnel Systems
Exist:
The Army and Marine Corps maintain a number of service-level training
and personnel systems. At the department level, DOD maintains several
additional information systems that draw upon or provide data to the
services' training and personnel systems. Table 1 provides information
on key Army and Marine Corps training and personnel systems and other
DOD information systems.
Table 1: Selected Army and Marine Corps Training and Personnel Systems
and Other DOD Information Systems:
Entity: Army.
Training systems:
System: Digital Training Management System;
Description: A customized training management system that facilitates
an organization's ability to plan, schedule, resource, record, and
report individual and collective training in units, brigade and below.
System: Army Training Requirements and Resources System;
Description: The system of record for management of personnel input to
training for the active component, Army National Guard, Army Reserve,
and Army civilian and other government agencies and civilian users. It
is the repository for training requirements, programs, personnel data,
and training costs for use by training managers to schedule classes,
fill seats, and train soldiers.
System: Unit Tracking Tools;
Description: Army: A number of spreadsheets, paper rosters, and other
informal processes to capture training information at the unit level.
Personnel systems:
System: Total Army Personnel Database;
Description: The official automated personnel records for all soldiers
that include personal identifiers, awards, and training.
System: Officer and Enlisted Record Briefs;
Description: Records stored within the Total Army Personnel Database
primarily used by personnel managers and promotion selection boards
that contain data from individual soldier personnel files.
Entity: Marine Corps.
Training systems:
System: Marine Corps Training Information Management System;
Description: A system used to manage enrollment and completion of
institutional training and professional military education.
System: Unit Tracking Tools;
Description: A number of spreadsheets, paper rosters, and other
informal processes to capture training information at the unit level.
Personnel systems:
System: Marine Corps Total Force System;
Description: The single, integrated, personnel and pay system that
includes data fields for individual marines such as personal
identifiers, awards, and training.
System: Service Record Books and Officer Qualification Records;
Description: Records stored within the Marine Corps Total Force System
that provide a summary of basic events in a marine's career that
includes a basic training record with test scores, weapons
qualifications, and service school attendance.
Entity: DOD.
Other information systems:
System: Defense Manpower Data Center;
Description: A central repository of personnel and manpower data.
System: Language Readiness Index;
Description: A Web-based tool within the Defense Readiness Reporting
System that is intended to provide senior decision makers with
information from service personnel systems and DOD databases on the
inventory of military and civilian personnel with language proficiency.
Source: GAO analysis of DOD data.
[End of table]
Army and Marine Corps Have Captured Limited Information on Language
and Culture Predeployment Training for Ongoing Operations:
The Army and Marine Corps have captured some information at the unit
level for those service members who completed language and culture
predeployment training for ongoing operations. DOD guidance requires
that the services document all language and regional proficiency
training, education, and experience, which includes culture, in
service training and personnel systems and use this information in
force management processes.[Footnote 14] Service documents also note
that language and culture training completion and corresponding
proficiency should be documented in service-level systems.[Footnote
15] However, we identified several factors that limited the Army's and
Marine Corps' ability to capture information within service-level
training and personnel systems on service members' completion of
language and culture training and their corresponding proficiency
gained from this training.
Army and Marine Corps Capture Information at the Unit Level on the
Completion of Language and Culture Predeployment Training:
Officials with Army and Marine Corps units we spoke with who were
preparing for deployments or who were deployed in Afghanistan at the
time of our review reported that they documented which service members
completed language and culture predeployment training on spreadsheets
and paper rosters that were stored at the unit level. For example:
* Officials with an Army brigade deployed in Afghanistan in December
2010 reported that its subordinate battalions recorded soldiers who
completed mandatory language and culture training tasks on unit
attendance rosters.
* Officials from an Army brigade preparing for deployment to
Afghanistan in March 2011 stated that companies and battalions within
the brigade documented an individual soldier's completion of required
language and culture predeployment training on manually completed
computer spreadsheets. During predeployment training, companies and
battalions reported summaries of the status and completion of critical
training tasks, including language and culture tasks, on a weekly
basis to the brigade headquarters.
* Officials from Marine Corps battalions preparing for deployment to
Afghanistan in November and December 2010 stated that units used
manually completed computer spreadsheets to document the number of
marines who completed language and culture predeployment training
requirements and unit training completion percentages were routinely
reported to the regiment headquarters.
Army and Marine Corps training officials reported that the approaches
used to capture information on the completion of predeployment
training provided unit commanders with some visibility over the number
of soldiers and marines who completed language and culture
predeployment training.
Army Training and Personnel Systems Do Not Contain Complete
Information on Language and Culture Predeployment Training Completion
and Corresponding Proficiency:
The Army requires that all of its units use the Digital Training
Management System to document soldiers' completion of individual
soldier training and collective training conducted at the unit level.
[Footnote 16] Moreover, in July 2010, the Army released specific
guidance that directed units to input language and culture
predeployment training in the Digital Training Management System.
[Footnote 17] According to an Army regulation and a Digital Training
Management System information paper, the intent of capturing training
information in electronic soldier records is to enable decision makers
at the service level to track and monitor soldiers, ensure that
training records are automatically transferred with a soldier when he
or she is reassigned to another unit, and provide visibility to senior
leaders that can inform force management decisions.
Units we interviewed reported, however, that they did not record the
completion of all mandatory language and culture predeployment
training tasks within the Digital Training Management System. Although
the system provides a single data field for units to record
information for basic language and culture training, the Army has
multiple, mandatory language and culture predeployment training
requirements. Because only one field exists, units we spoke with
stated that inconsistent information was recorded in that field. In
some cases, units recorded basic culture training in the field but did
not record predeployment language training. For example, officials
with battalions preparing to deploy to Afghanistan in March 2011
reported they did not record information in this field for soldiers
who completed mandatory language training at an on-site language
training detachment. At the time of our review, the Army had not yet
established data fields within the Digital Training Management System
that would allow training officials to document soldiers' completion
of all mandatory language and culture training tasks. In bringing this
fact to the attention of the Army, service headquarters officials
stated that the Army has considered adding new data fields within the
Digital Training Management System for all required language and
culture predeployment training tasks, but as of July 2011, had not
done so. Without data fields available that are clearly aligned with
all mandatory training tasks, units have been unable to document which
soldiers completed language and culture training.
We also found that the Army had not recorded language proficiency in
its primary training systems, despite the fact that these systems have
data fields to record this information. In December 2010, the Army
reinforced its prior guidance that directed that units record training
in the Digital Training Management System and also stated that units
should record training within the Army Training Requirements and
Resources System to enable tracking of cultural knowledge and foreign
language proficiency.[Footnote 18] Service officials reported that, as
of July 2011, nearly 100 percent of the more than 800 soldiers who
completed training at a language training detachment met the Army
standard for language proficiency in the speaking and listening
modalities.[Footnote 19] However, information on the language
proficiency of these soldiers was unavailable in either of these
systems. Unit officials we spoke with reported that they did not
record soldiers' language proficiency gained from training at a
language training detachment within the Digital Training Management
System, but rather tracked the number of soldiers who met the Army's
language proficiency standard on unit spreadsheets. Training managers
responsible for inputting data in the Army Training Requirements and
Resources System also reported that they did not record language
proficiency data for soldiers who completed this training. Officials
stated that information on language proficiency is typically
documented within the Army's personnel system.
The Army's primary personnel system (the Total Army Personnel
Database) has the capability to capture language proficiency. While
the Army collects some language proficiency data within this system,
the Army considers these data unreliable because of weaknesses in its
approach to collecting them. For all soldiers, including those who
complete training at a language training detachment, the Army utilizes
a paper form to document soldiers' language proficiency. Upon
completing training at a language training detachment, the Army has
provided soldiers with a test to determine proficiency in the
listening and speaking modalities and a testing official records the
corresponding proficiency on this form. The form should then be passed
on to a soldier's local training manager and to the Army Human
Resources Command.[Footnote 20] The Army Human Resources Command is
required to ensure that language proficiency data are current and
accessible to the Department of the Army staff and personnel managers.
According to Army officials, the command updates these data in
soldiers' personnel records within the Total Army Personnel Database.
However, Army officials described several weaknesses in this process
that result in unreliable data. For example, the Army relies on hand-
delivered hard copy forms, which introduce multiple opportunities for
these forms to be lost or human error in data entry.[Footnote 21]
Depending on the type of language test, language proficiency data are
also reported to the Defense Manpower Data Center, which maintains
personnel and manpower data for all service members, including
language test scores. For Web-based tests, test scores are
automatically transferred to the Defense Manpower Data Center. For in-
person or telephone tests, a testing official records the test score
and sends the results to the Defense Manpower Data Center. Army
officials explained that a data link does not currently exist to
transfer data between the Defense Manpower Data Center and the Total
Army Personnel Database and therefore language proficiency data have
not been routinely documented in soldiers' personnel records. Because
the Total Army Personnel Database is also intended to provide data on
soldiers' language proficiency for the department's Language Readiness
Index, officials responsible for managing the Language Readiness Index
reported that departmentwide visibility over service members' language
proficiency is limited by the lack of accurate and timely service data.
To better understand examples of limitations in the Army's ability to
capture information within the Army's training and personnel systems
on the completion of language and culture predeployment training and
corresponding language proficiency, see figure 3.
Figure 3: Examples of Limitations in the Army's Ability to Capture
Information within Training and Personnel Systems on Completion of
Language and Culture Predeployment Training and Corresponding Language
Proficiency:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
Army training systems:
Digital Training Management System:
Limitation: data fields do not exist for all mandatory language and
culture training tasks and units are not recording language
proficiency.
Information recorded in unit training tracking tools.
Soldier completes language and culture training:
Limitation: training officials not recording language proficiency.
Army Training Requirements and Resources System.
DOD and Army personnel systems:
Soldier completes language and culture training:
Score recorded in Defense Manpower Data Center test database:
Limitation: direct data feed to Total Army Personnel Database does not
exist.
Language training detachment graduate completes language test.
Score recorded on Army form:
Limitation: hand-carried form can be lost or not filed.
Form submitted by hand to Army Human Resources Command.
Recorded in Total Army Personnel Database.
Source: GAO analysis of DOD data.
[End of figure]
In January 2011, the Army established a task force to improve the
accuracy of information on service members' language proficiency
available within the Total Army Personnel Database. At the time of our
review, the Army Language Tracking Task Force had identified a number
of key tasks and was at varying stages of completing its work. For
example, the task force is working to establish a direct data link
between the Defense Manpower Data Center where language test scores
are recorded and the Total Army Personnel Database. According to a
task force official, the Army plans to complete this link by early
2012.
Marine Corps Training and Personnel Systems Lack Information on
Language and Culture Predeployment Training Completion and
Corresponding Proficiency:
According to Marine Corps Order 3502.6, units are required to track
and report information about the status of predeployment training in
accordance with guidance provided by the unit's chain of command.
[Footnote 22] As discussed earlier in this report, Marine Corps units
we spoke with reported that the completion of language and culture
predeployment training for ongoing operations in Afghanistan was
captured and tracked at the unit level using informal approaches, such
as spreadsheets and paper rosters. Officials also explained that no
Marine Corps service-level system is used to record the completion of
predeployment training tasks. In its January 2011 strategy, the Marine
Corps noted that no mechanism exists within the service to track
regional and cultural skills obtained through operational experience
on a servicewide basis, but that the timely identification of marines
with these skills could assist the service in making force management
decisions. The strategy also identifies the need for the service to
develop a tracking mechanism to readily identify and leverage regional
and cultural skills.[Footnote 23] As presently structured, the Marine
Corps Training Information Management System enables servicewide
tracking of the completion of institutional training and professional
military education.[Footnote 24] During our review, Marine Corps
officials stated that the service was in the process of developing a
new module within this system that, when fully implemented, would
allow units to document individual and unit predeployment training.
However, according to officials, the Marine Corps has not determined
if this new module or another system would be used to track language
or culture predeployment training tasks.
We also found that the Marine Corps had not provided formal language
tests to marines who completed significant language training for
ongoing operations in Afghanistan and, therefore, had not documented
their language proficiency within its primary personnel system (the
Marine Corps Total Force System) or any other system. According to
officials, most marines selected for Afghan language training (about
30 marines per battalion) received approximately 40 hours of training
that primarily focused on basic rapport building and memorization of
survival phrases. Due to the limited number of hours of training,
Marine Corps officials stated that these training programs were not
designed to produce measurable language proficiency. In discussions
with units preparing for deployments to Afghanistan and with training
providers, we found that some marines completed more extensive
language training. For example, Marine Corps officials estimated that
about 15 percent of marines selected for language training completed
an advanced language training program that consisted of 160 hours of
live instruction at a language training detachment on Camp Lejeune or
Camp Pendleton, which also included a minimum of an additional 72
hours of self-directed learning via computer-based language training.
In addition, our analysis found that about 1,000 marines attended
training programs at a local community college and university since
2009 that ranged from 160 to 320 hours of Afghan language training.
In cases where service members complete a significant language
training event as defined by DOD and service guidance, the Marine
Corps is responsible for administering the Defense Language
Proficiency Test system of tests to measure language proficiency.
[Footnote 25] However, although several language training programs met
the criteria established in DOD and service guidance, we found that
the Marine Corps had not required marines who completed significant
language training to take a Defense Language Proficiency Test system
of tests to measure their language proficiency. Therefore, the Marine
Corps does not have language proficiency data for these marines.
Marine Corps officials told us that they are reviewing the potential
applicability of using a new Defense Language Proficiency Test that
has been specifically designed to assess lower levels of language
proficiency, but formal decisions on whether to use this test for
general purpose force marines who completed significant Afghan
language training have not yet been made.[Footnote 26]
By not capturing information within service-level training and
personnel systems on the training that general purpose forces have
completed and the proficiency they gained from training, the Army and
Marine Corps do not have the information they need to effectively
leverage the language and culture knowledge and skills of these forces
when making individual assignments and assessing future operational
needs.
Army and Marine Corps Have Not Developed Plans to Sustain Language
Skills Already Acquired through Predeployment Training:
DOD and service guidance address the need to sustain language skills
and the DOD strategic plan for language, regional, and culture skills
calls for the services to build on existing language skills for future
needs. The Army and Marine Corps have made considerable investments in
time and resources to provide some service members with extensive
predeployment language training, but have not developed plans to
sustain language skills already acquired through this training. We
found that the Army and Marine Corps had not yet determined which
service members require follow-on training, the amount of training
required, or appropriate mechanisms for delivering the training.
DOD and Service Guidance on Sustainment Training for Language Skills:
DOD guidance instructs the services to develop sustainment language
and regional proficiency training and education plans for language
professionals and language-skilled personnel.[Footnote 27] Likewise,
service documents reinforce the need to sustain language skills. For
example, according to the Army's December 2010 Culture and Foreign
Language Strategy Execution Order, the Army will sustain the language
skills of soldiers who achieve low levels of language proficiency.
[Footnote 28] Additionally, the Marine Corps Language, Regional and
Culture Strategy: 2011-2015 notes that without an effective
sustainment program, the war-fighting benefits from language training
will be lost, which minimizes the service's return on investment for
this training.[Footnote 29] Consequently, the strategy states that the
Marine Corps must explore and leverage all cost-effective solutions to
sustain language capabilities. Moreover, the Marine Corps has
published guidance that states that mission accomplishment and
efficiency can be enhanced if marines attain and maintain language
proficiency, even at the lowest levels of proficiency.[Footnote 30]
Additionally, a DOD strategy calls for the services to build on
existing language skills for future needs. The Department of Defense
Strategic Plan for Language Skills, Regional Expertise, and Cultural
Capabilities (2011-2016) notes that in order to meet the requirements
generated by an expanding global role, it is incumbent on the
department to build on current language skills and invest in basic and
continuing language, regional, and culture training and
education.[Footnote 31] The strategy also states that by identifying
language, regional, and cultural requirements and building these
capabilities, DOD will be able to more effectively engage with not
only partners and allies, but also with the indigenous populations in
order to build rapport and establish trusting relationships.
Army and Marine Corps Have Made Considerable Investments in
Predeployment Language Training:
The Army and Marine Corps have made considerable investments in time
and resources to provide some service members with extensive
predeployment language training in order to prepare them for ongoing
operations in Afghanistan. For example, according to Army documents,
the Army spent about $12.3 million through August 2011 to establish
and maintain language training detachment sites for Afghan language
training. The Army estimated that it will spend an additional $31.6
million from fiscal year 2012 through fiscal year 2015 to maintain
these sites. The Marine Corps has also funded Afghan language training
courses at San Diego State University and Coastal Carolina Community
College. Table 2 summarizes the number of soldiers and marines who
completed selected language training programs since 2009, the length
of the training, and the estimated cost of training.
Table 2: Selected Afghan Language Training Program Enrollments and
Costs Since 2009:
Language training: Army language training detachment;
Number trained[A]: 848;
Length of training (hours): At least 480;
Estimated cost of training[B]: $12,334,400.
Language training: Marine Corps language training detachment;
Number trained[A]: 639;
Length of training (hours): Between 40 and 160;
Estimated cost of training[B]: $1,288,600.
Language training: San Diego State University;
Number trained[A]: 258;
Length of training (hours): 320;
Estimated cost of training[B]: [C].
Language training: Coastal Carolina Community College;
Number trained[A]: 770;
Length of training (hours): 160;
Estimated cost of training[B]: $134,750.
Source: GAO analysis of DOD data.
[A] Data as of July 2011.
[B] Data for Army and Marine Corps language training detachments as of
August 2011. Data for Coastal Carolina Community College as of July
2011.
[C] The Marine Corps does not pay a cost per student for the San Diego
State University language training program. If entitled, a marine is
reimbursed for travel and per diem costs to attend training. Marine
Corps officials were unable to provide us with the number of marines
who received travel and per diem payments and, as a result, we were
unable to estimate the total cost of this training.
Note: Additional soldiers and marines were enrolled in these training
programs at the time of our review. For example, as of July 2011, 225
soldiers were participating in training at Army language training
detachments.
[End of table]
Army and Marine Corps Have Not Developed Formal Sustainment Plans for
Language Skills Already Acquired through Predeployment Training:
While informal language training programs exist, the Army and Marine
Corps have not developed formal plans to sustain language skills
acquired through predeployment training for ongoing operations.
Officials with Army and Marine Corps units preparing for deployment
and those deployed in Afghanistan reported that some informal follow-
on training programs were available to service members to sustain
language skills, for example, utilizing self-directed learning tools
such as computer-based training programs. However, the use of informal
training options to refresh and maintain language skills was voluntary
and left to service members' personal initiative. The Defense Language
Institute Foreign Language Center has reported that although personal
initiative is necessary, it is almost never sufficient for maintenance
of such a complex skill as foreign language proficiency.[Footnote 32]
We found that the Army and Marine Corps had not yet determined which
service members require follow-on training to sustain language skills,
the amount of training required, or appropriate mechanisms for
delivering the training. Army officials stated they recognized the
need to sustain language skills acquired through predeployment
training with a formal training program, particularly in light of the
number of service members who already received language training that
will have multiple deployments to the same region. At the time of our
review, the Army was evaluating various sustainment training options,
but had not yet developed a formal plan or identified the resources
required to provide the training. The Marine Corps is not planning to
sustain the Afghan language skills of marines that were acquired
through predeployment training with a formal training program. Marine
Corps officials cited several reasons as the basis for this approach,
for example because of the turnover of personnel within the Marine
Corps from one deployment to the next. Additionally, according to
current plans, the service will provide language training for a
variety of languages as part of its career development program.
[Footnote 33] However, we found that this program is not intended to
maintain or build upon language skills already acquired by some
marines through extensive predeployment Afghan language training. In
the absence of formal sustainment training to maintain and build upon
service members' language skills acquired for ongoing operations at
considerable expense in time and resources, the Army and Marine Corps
may miss opportunities to capitalize on the investments they have
already made to provide predeployment language training.
Conclusions:
DOD has recognized that its ability to identify general purpose forces
that have language and culture knowledge and skills will be critical
to managing these forces in the future. However, by not capturing
information within service-level training and personnel systems on the
completion of language and culture training and corresponding
proficiency gained from training, the Army and Marine Corps do not
have the information they need to effectively leverage the language
and culture knowledge and skills of these forces when making
individual assignments and assessing future operational needs.
Further, the Army and Marine Corps face competing demands for limited
training time and resources and, in this context, not all service
members who acquired skills through predeployment language training
may require follow-on training. Despite the fact that the Army and
Marine Corps have made considerable investments to provide some
service members with extensive predeployment language training, the
services have not determined which service members require follow-on
training to sustain language skills, the amount of training required,
or appropriate mechanisms for delivering the training. As a result,
the Army and Marine Corps may not fully maximize the return on
investment already made for predeployment language training for
current operations.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
We recommend the Secretary of Defense take the following five actions.
To provide decision makers with greater visibility on the language and
culture knowledge and skills of Army and Marine Corps general purpose
forces that could inform force management processes, we recommend that
the Secretary of Defense direct the Secretary of the Army to:
* Establish clearly defined data fields for all mandatory language and
culture training tasks within the Digital Training Management System
and update Digital Training Management System records for soldiers who
completed training prior to these fields being established.
* Document the language proficiency for soldiers completing
predeployment language training within the Digital Training Management
System and the Army Training Requirements and Resources System.
We further recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the
Secretary of the Navy, in consultation with the Commandant of the
Marine Corps, to:
* Designate which training and/or personnel systems the Marine Corps
should use to document the completion of marines' language and culture
training.
* Administer formal tests to marines completing a significant language
training event using DOD's agreed-upon method to measure proficiency,
and ensure the results of these tests are documented in marines'
personnel records within the Marine Corps Total Force System.
To capitalize on the investments in time and resources made in
providing language training to service members, we recommend that the
Secretary of Defense direct the Secretary of the Army and the
Secretary of the Navy, in consultation with the Commandant of the
Marine Corps, to:
* Determine which soldiers and marines with language skills require
follow-on training, the amount of training required, and appropriate
mechanisms for delivering the training, and make any adjustments to
training programs that may be needed.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD concurred with two
recommendations and partially concurred with three recommendations.
DOD's comments are reprinted in their entirety in appendix II. DOD
also provided technical comments, which we incorporated into the
report as appropriate.
In addition to providing detailed responses to our recommendations,
DOD provided two general comments about our report. First, DOD pointed
out that our report noted the extent to which the Army and Marine
Corps used service-level training and personnel systems to record
service members' proficiency gained from predeployment training that
meets DOD's definition of "significant language training." DOD stated
that, since it believed the current definition in the report may have
taken the definition out of context, it would like to clarify what
constitutes a "significant language training event," noting that DOD
Instruction 5160.71 defines such an event as "at least 150 hours of
immersion training or 6 consecutive weeks of 5-hours-a day classroom
training, or other significant event as defined by the Secretaries of
the Military Departments and the Heads of Defense Agencies and DOD
Field Activities."[Footnote 34] DOD stated that this definition was
not intended to be associated with the initial acquisition of a
language, but rather is associated with modifying the retesting
interval for someone who has already achieved a measured proficiency.
In a follow-up discussion, DOD officials clarified that language
training offered during predeployment training falls into the category
of initial acquisition of a language, and therefore, under the
instruction, testing for proficiency is not required. These officials
noted, however, that the military services are not precluded from
testing for language proficiency at this stage, and therefore have the
option of administering tests. As we noted in our report, the Army has
decided to exercise this option and is in fact testing the proficiency
of its service members upon completing extensive predeployment
training. Given the considerable investments that the Marine Corps is
making to provide some marines with extensive language training prior
to deploying to Afghanistan, we continue to believe it is prudent for
the Marine Corps to take a similar approach to testing. In the absence
of such action, we continue to believe that DOD may be missing an
opportunity to gain greater visibility of the language skills of its
forces and therefore effectively leverage this capability when making
individual assignments and assessing future operational needs.
Second, DOD acknowledged our recommendation to develop sustainment
training programs to maintain and build upon service members' language
skills. The department noted that DOD Instruction 5160.70 emphasizes
the importance of sustainment language and regional proficiency
training and education programs for language professionals and
language-skilled personnel.[Footnote 35] DOD stated that with an
increasing number of general purpose forces attending predeployment
language training at language training detachments, the department
will examine ways to capitalize on the investments already made to
ensure that it builds, enhances, and sustains a total force with a mix
of language skills, regional expertise, and cultural capabilities to
meet existing and emerging needs.
DOD also provided detailed comments on each of our recommendations.
DOD concurred with our recommendation that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Secretary of the Army to establish clearly defined data
fields for all mandatory language and culture training tasks within
the Digital Training Management System and update Digital Training
Management System records for soldiers that completed training prior
to these fields being established. DOD stated that deficiencies within
the Digital Training Management System have been identified and that
the Army, in a December 2010 order, had directed the development of
solutions to address these deficiencies. As stated in our report, we
recognize that the Army directed that units record training in the
Digital Training Management System. However, its direction did not
include requiring that adjustments be made in the system.
Specifically, it did not call for action to be taken to add new data
fields for all required language and culture predeployment training
tasks that would allow training officials to document soldiers'
completion of these tasks. Therefore, because the Army has not
directed this action, we continue to believe that our recommendation
has merit.
DOD concurred with our recommendation that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Secretary of the Army to document the language proficiency
for soldiers completing predeployment language training within the
Digital Training Management System and the Army Training Requirements
and Resources System. DOD stated that most predeployment language
training is of such short duration that language proficiency will not
be measurable and that the department's emphasis will be to document
language proficiency for general purpose forces completing
predeployment foundational language training (usually 16 weeks or
longer) conducted at language training detachments. DOD also noted
that the Total Army Personnel Database will remain the primary system
for recording language proficiency of Army personnel. DOD further
noted that the Army Training Requirements and Resources System already
facilitates the requirement for tracking and reporting certain
language and culture training courses. For example, DOD noted that the
Army has, within the system, assigned specific codes for all language
and culture training courses; modified functions to require a
proficiency score for these courses; and assigned codes to each of the
courses for a specific language. However, in its comments, DOD did not
state whether the Army plans to take any actions to document language
proficiency within the Digital Training Management System, as we also
recommended. We continue to believe this action is needed to provide
decision makers with better information on the language and culture
knowledge and skills of soldiers to make individual assignments and
assess future operational needs.
DOD partially concurred with our recommendation that the Secretary of
Defense direct the Secretary of the Navy, in consultation with the
Commandant of the Marine Corps, to designate which training and/or
personnel systems the Marine Corps should use to document the
completion of marines' language and culture training. DOD stated that,
as outlined in our report, current Marine Corps systems, such as the
Marine Corps Training Information Management System, are designed to
track the completion of institutional training and professional
military education, not the completion of individual and unit-level
training. DOD stated that although efforts are being pursued that may
eventually allow for this capability, the Marine Corps believes that a
comprehensive cost-benefit analysis needs to be conducted beforehand
in order to accurately capture the costs in time, fiscal resources,
and infrastructure enhancements associated with implementation and
determine whether those costs necessary to track the completion of
language and culture training at the individual and unit levels are
warranted, particularly when prioritized against other validated
operational requirements in a fiscally-and time-constrained
environment. We agree that the Marine Corps should consider the costs
associated with documenting the completion of language and culture
training beyond those already incurred at the unit level to record
this information and determine whether the benefits are warranted. As
part of its analysis, we would expect that the service would also
consider the potential opportunity cost of not recording this
information, such as how it might affect the ability of decision
makers to make timely and informed decisions on assigning forces or
assessing future operational needs if they do not have complete
information on the knowledge and skills of their forces.
DOD partially concurred with our recommendation that the Secretary of
Defense direct the Secretary of the Navy, in consultation with the
Commandant of the Marine Corps, to administer formal tests to marines
completing a significant language training event using DOD's agreed-
upon method to measure proficiency, and ensure the results of these
tests are documented in marines' personnel records with the Marine
Corps Total Force System. DOD stated that the Marine Corps'
predeployment language training programs are not specifically designed
to produce a measurable language proficiency score using DOD's agreed-
upon method for measuring it. Rather, the programs are focused on the
military/tactical domain, and are designed to provide marines with the
communication skills necessary to accomplish a specific mission-
related task/skill. DOD stated, however, that the Marine Corps is
assessing the feasibility of incorporating metrics into its
predeployment language training programs that would produce a
proficiency score, such as using the Very Low Range series of Defense
Language Proficiency Tests and oral proficiency interviews. DOD also
restated the need for clarification in our report over what
constitutes "significant language training," noting that the current
definition was not intended to represent initial acquisition of a
language but rather is associated with modifying retesting intervals.
As discussed previously, DOD officials clarified that the military
services are not precluded from testing proficiency following the
completion of courses that fall into the category of initial
acquisition of a language, such as predeployment training. As we noted
in our report, the Marine Corps has made considerable investments to
provide some marines with extensive predeployment language training
prior to deploying to Afghanistan. To date, the Marine Corps has not
required these marines to take a Defense Language Proficiency Test
system of tests to measure their language proficiency. Without this
information, we continue to believe that DOD may be missing an
opportunity to gain greater visibility of the language skills of its
forces and therefore effectively leverage this capability when making
individual assignments and assessing future operational needs.
DOD partially concurred with our recommendation that the Secretary of
Defense direct the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of the
Navy, in consultation with the Commandant of the Marine Corps, to
determine which soldiers and marines with language skills require
follow-on training, the amount of training required, and appropriate
mechanisms for delivering the training, and make any adjustments to
training programs that may be needed. DOD stated that the Army is
formulating a plan for sustainment of language skills acquired at Army
language training detachments and that such a plan would rely heavily
on existing distributed learning resources. We would expect that as
the Army develops this plan, it would specifically address which
soldiers require additional training, the amount of training required,
appropriate mechanisms for delivering the training, and whether any
adjustments to existing training programs would be made. DOD also
stated that the Marine Corps has made a decision to formally build and
sustain language, regional, and culture skills via the Regional,
Culture, and Language Familiarization program for general purpose
forces that specifically targets its officer corps and enlisted ranks
starting at sergeant and above. DOD noted that given high attrition
rates for first-term enlisted marines, applying this program or other
deliberate institutional programs designed to target the first-term
enlisted population group have been deemed cost prohibitive. For these
marines, language, regional, and culture skills are provided through
predeployment training programs and common skills training, and
sustained via informal mechanisms by providing access to language
learning software and other computer-based technologies. We recognize
that the Marine Corps has developed the Regional, Culture, and
Language Familiarization program that is focused on its career force.
However, as we stated in our report, the Marine Corps has made a
considerable investment in time and resources to provide some marines
with extensive predeployment language training in order to prepare
them for ongoing operations in Afghanistan, but at this point, the
Regional, Culture, and Language Familiarization program is not
intended to maintain or build upon the language skills already
acquired by these marines. In the absence of formal training to
sustain these language skills, DOD may miss opportunities to
capitalize on the investments already made to provide predeployment
language training.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Defense, the
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, the Secretary
of Army, the Secretary of the Navy, and the Commandant of the Marine
Corps. This report also is available at no charge on the GAO Web site
at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. If you or your staff have any
questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-9619 or
pickups@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional
Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this
report. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix III.
Signed by:
Sharon L. Pickup:
Director:
Defense Capabilities and Management:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
To address our objectives, we met with officials from the Office of
the Secretary of Defense, the Army, and the Marine Corps. To evaluate
the extent to which the Army and Marine Corps captured information
within service-level training and personnel systems on the completion
of language and culture training and proficiency gained by personnel
through training, we focused on Army and Marine Corps language and
culture predeployment training programs administered since 2009 to
prepare general purpose forces for ongoing operations in Afghanistan
and Iraq. Therefore, for this review, we excluded service training
programs for language and regional experts (e.g., foreign area
officers and intelligence specialists) and special operations forces.
We reviewed information available in service-level training and
personnel systems and department-level information systems on service
members' completion of language and culture training and the
corresponding acquisition of skills--specifically, the time frame when
this training occurred and the proficiency service members had
achieved. We defined "proficiency" using the Department of Defense
(DOD) agreed-upon method for measuring it.[Footnote 36] We conducted
interviews with Army and Marine Corps officials who are responsible
for developing predeployment training programs and documenting
information on training completion in service-level training and
personnel systems. We also discussed the extent to which the services
used these systems to record any proficiency gained from training, in
particular the training that meets DOD's definition of a significant
language training event--at least 150 hours of immersion training or 6
consecutive weeks of 5-hour-a-day classroom training.[Footnote 37] We
also interviewed officials with Army and Marine Corps units that were
participating in predeployment training and units that were deployed
in Afghanistan at the time of our review to discuss the extent to
which they used service-level training and personnel systems and other
processes to document the completion of language and culture
predeployment training and proficiency gained from this training. In
identifying Army and Marine Corps unit personnel to speak with, we
selected an illustrative nongeneralizable sample of units that were
deployed for contingency operations or preparing to deploy during the
time frame of October 2010 through June 2011. We assessed the Army's
and Marine Corps' efforts in light of DOD guidance that requires that
the services document all language and regional proficiency training,
education, and experience in training and personnel systems and Army
and Marine Corps documents that state that language and culture
training completion and corresponding proficiency should be documented
in service-level systems.[Footnote 38] For our review, we focused on
language and culture-related training, which DOD includes in its
description of regional proficiency skills. We also discussed with
Office of the Secretary of Defense and Army officials the content and
status of ongoing departmental and Army efforts, such as the Army's
Language Tracking Task Force, which are intended to improve the
accuracy of information on the language proficiency of service members
available in personnel systems.
To evaluate the extent to which the Army and Marine Corps have
developed plans to sustain language skills acquired through
predeployment training, we interviewed Army and Marine Corps training
officials to discuss the extent to which the services had developed
specific training programs for general purpose forces to sustain
language skills. We interviewed officials with Army and Marine Corps
units that were participating in predeployment training and units that
were deployed in Afghanistan at the time of our review to discuss
formal programs used by service members to sustain skills acquired
through language training. We also discussed other informal training
programs that were available to service members to sustain language
skills. In identifying Army and Marine Corps unit personnel to speak
with, we selected an illustrative nongeneralizable sample of units
that were deployed for contingency operations or preparing to deploy
during the time frame of October 2010 through June 2011. To gain an
understanding of the investments associated with predeployment
language training, we collected information from service training
officials on the number of soldiers and marines completing training
from January 2009 through July 2011, the amount of time spent in
training, and the cost of these training programs. To ensure the
reliability of our data, we interviewed knowledgeable officials about
the data and internal controls on the systems that contain them. We
determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes
of this audit. We reviewed Army and Marine Corps training programs and
plans in light of DOD and service guidance that emphasize the need to
sustain language skills and the DOD strategic plan for language,
regional, and culture skills that calls for the services to build on
existing language skills for future needs.[Footnote 39]
To gain insights on Army and Marine Corps units' perspectives on
capturing information on language and culture training in service-
level training and personnel systems and discuss any steps taken to
sustain skills acquired through language training, we interviewed
officials with Army and Marine Corps units that were participating in
predeployment training and that were deployed in Afghanistan at the
time of our review. Specifically, we met with officials with one Army
brigade combat team preparing for deployment and five subordinate
combat arms and support battalions, three Marine Corps combat arms and
one support battalion preparing for deployment, and through formal
requests for information from the United States Forces Afghanistan
staff, we received written responses from three Army combat arms and
two Army support brigades deployed in Afghanistan. The team focused on
combat arms units because training guidance from the battlefield
commander focused on language training for these units.[Footnote 40]
We interviewed officials, and where appropriate obtained
documentation, at the following locations:
Office of the Secretary of Defense:
* Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness:
- Defense Language Office:
Department of the Army:
* Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G1:
* Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G2:
* Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G3/5/7:
* Assistant Secretary of the Army, Manpower and Reserve Affairs:
* Army Forces Command:
* Army Reserve Command:
* Army Training and Doctrine Command:
- Center for Army Lessons Learned:
- Combined Arms Center:
- Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center:
- Training and Doctrine Command Culture Center:
* First United States Army:
Department of the Navy:
* Marine Corps Training and Education Command:
- Center for Advanced Operational Culture Learning:
* Marine Corps Air-Ground Task Force Training Command:
* Marine Corps Center for Lessons Learned:
* Marine Corps Forces Command:
* Marine Corps Forces, Pacific:
* I Marine Expeditionary Force:
* II Marine Expeditionary Force:
* III Marine Expeditionary Force:
Other DOD Components:
* U.S. Central Command:
- U.S. Forces Afghanistan:
We conducted this performance audit from June 2010 to October 2011 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Office Of The Under Secretary Of Defense:
Personnel And Readiness:
4000 Defense Pentagon:
Washington, D.C. 20301-4000:
October 17, 2011:
Ms. Sharon L. Pickup:
Director, Defense Capabilities and Management:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. Pickup,
This is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the GAO Draft
Report, GAO-12-50, "Language and Culture Training: Opportunities Exist
to Improve Visibility and Sustainment of Knowledge and Skills in Army
and Marine Corps General Purpose Forces," dated September 15, 2011
(GAO Code 351506).
DoD concurs with most of the recommendations made in the draft report.
Detailed responses to those recommendations are contained in the
enclosure. In addition, we would like to offer the following comments
on the report.
The report noted the extent to which the Army and Marine Corps used
Service-level training and personnel systems to record service
members' proficiency gained from predeployment training that meets the
DoD's definition of "significant language training." The Department
would like to clarify what constitutes a "significant language
training event", since the current definition being utilized in the
report may have been taken out of context. DoD Instruction 5160.71
defines a significant language training event as "at least I50 hours
of immersion training or 6 consecutive weeks of 5-hours-a day
classroom training, or other significant event as defined by the
Secretaries of the Military Departments and the Heads of Defense
Agencies and DoD Field Activities." This definition was not intended
to be associated with initial acquisition of a language, but rather is
associated with modifying the retesting interval for someone who has
already achieved a measured proficiency.
The Department acknowledges the report's recommendation to develop
sustainment training programs to maintain and build upon service
member's language skills. DoD Instruction 5160.70 currently emphasizes
the importance of sustainment language and regional proficiency
training and education programs for language professionals and
language skilled personnel. However, with an increasing number of
general purpose forces attending predeployment language training at
Language Training Detachments, the Department will examine ways to
capitalize on the investments already made to ensure we build,
enhance, and sustain a Total Force with a mix of language skills,
regional expertise, and cultural capabilities to meet existing and
emerging needs.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this draft report. We look
forward to receiving the final report, when available.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Dr. Laura J. Junor:
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Readiness):
Enclosure: As stated.
[End of letter]
GAO Draft Report Dated September 15, 2011:
GAO-12-50 (GAO Code 351506):
"Language And Culture Training: Opportunities Exist To Improve
Visibility And Sustainment Of Knowledge And Skills In Army And Marine
Corps General Purpose Forces"
Department Of Defense Comments To The GAO Recommendations:
Recommendation 1: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Secretary of the Army to establish clearly defined data
fields for all mandatory language and culture training tasks within
the Digital Training Management System and update Digital Training
Management System records for soldiers that completed training prior
to these fields being established.
DoD Response: Concur. The deficiencies identified within the Digital
Training Management System (DTMS) have been identified and the
development of solutions addressing these deficiencies has been
directed by HQ Department of Army Execution Order of December 2010
regarding the implementation of the Army Culture Foreign Language
Strategy.
Recommendation 2: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Secretary of the Army to document the language proficiency
for soldiers completing predeployment language training within the
Digital Training Management System and the Army Training Requirements
and Resources System.
DoD Response: Concur. Most predeployment language training is of such
short duration that language proficiency will not be measurable.
Rather, emphasis will be to document language proficiency for general
purpose forces (GPF) completing predeployment foundational language
training (usually sixteen weeks or longer) conducted at Language
Training Detachments. The Total Army Personnel Database will remain
the primary system for recording language proficiency of Army
personnel.
The Army Training Requirements and Resources System (ATRRS) already
facilitates the requirement for tracking and reporting language and
culture training through completion of ATRRS managed training courses.
ATRRS has assigned a specific "select code" for all identified
Language Culture Training Courses for reporting purposes. ATRRS has
modified Input and Graduate functions to require a proficiency score
for Language Culture Training Courses. Additionally, ATRRS has
assigned a Language Identification Code to each of the Language Culture
Training Courses for a specific language. Finally, reports can be
requested within ATRRS to track/analyze the above actions. ATRRS
routinely provides training completion transactions to the Total Army
Personnel Database in support of its role as the Army's authoritative
source/system of record for personnel data.
Recommendation 3: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Secretary of the Navy, in consultation with the Commandant
of the Marine Corps, to designate which training and/or personnel
systems the Marine Corps should use to document the completion of
marines' language and culture training.
DoD Response: Partially concur. As outlined in the report, current
Marine Corps systems such as the Marine Corps Training Information
Management System (MCTIMS) are designed to track completion of
institutional training and professional military education, not
completion of individual/unit-level training. Though efforts are being
pursued that may eventually allow for this capability, to include the
possible addition of a module to MCTTMS and other efforts to track
IW-related individual skills, the Marine Corps believes a
comprehensive cost-benefit analysis needs to be conducted beforehand
in order to: 1) accurately capture the "real costs" in time, fiscal
resources, and infrastructure enhancements associated with
implementation; and 2) determine whether those real costs/additional
expenditures in time, resources, and funding necessary to implement
tracking completion of language and culture training at the individual
and unit-levels is worth the cost, particularly when prioritized
against other validated operational requirements in a fiscally and
time constrained environment.
Recommendation 4: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Secretary of the Navy, in consultation with the Commandant
of the Marine Corps, to administer formal tests to marines completing
a significant language training event using DOD's agreed upon method
to measure proficiency, and ensure the results of these tests are
documented in marines' personnel records with the Marine Corps Total
Force System.
DoD Response: Partially concur. The Marine Corps' predeployment language
training programs are not specifically designed to produce a
measurable global proficiency score on the ILR scale. The program is
focused on the military/tactical domain, and is designed to provide
the Marine with the communication skills necessary to accomplish a
specific mission related task/skill Developing measures of
effectiveness that target performance based requirements, vice global
proficiency, is what is truly needed. This is accomplished by the
Marine Corps during mission rehearsal exercises such as Enhanced
Mojave Viper prior to deployment. With the introduction of the Very
Low Range series of Defense Language Proficiency Tests (DLPT) and oral
proficiency interviews, the Marine Corps is assessing the feasibility
of incorporating these metrics into the predeployment language
training programs. Additionally, clarification is required to
determine what constitutes "significant language training." There is
concern that the current definition being utilized may have been taken
out of context, and was not intended to represent initial acquisition
of a language but rather is associated with modifying retesting
intervals.
Recommendation 5: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of the Navy, in
consultation with the Commandant of the Marine Corps, to determine
which soldiers and marines with language skills require follow-on
training, the amount of training required, and appropriate mechanisms
for delivering the training, and make any adjustments to training
programs that may be needed.
DoD Response: Partially concur. The Marine Corps has made a decision
to formally build and sustain language, regional, and culture skills
via deliberate institutional programs for the GPF that specifically
targets its Career Force. As outlined in the report, the Regional,
Culture, and Language Familiarization (RCLF) Program is designed to
build, enhance, and sustain these critical enablers in a focused,
deliberate manner for its Career Force, comprised of its officer corps
and enlisted ranks starting at sergeant and above. Given the very high
first term enlisted attrition rates characteristics of the Marine
Corps, robust application of the RCLF Program, or implementation of
other deliberate institutional programs designed to target the first
term enlisted population group, have been deemed cost prohibitive. At
this level, language, regional, and culture skills are provided
through training training, predeployment program and common skills and
sustained via informal mechanisms by providing access to language
learning software and other computer based technologies.
As for the Army, it is formulating a plan for sustainment of language
skills acquired at the Language Training Detachments. Such a plan
would rely heavily on existing distributed learning resources.
[End of section]
Appendix III GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Sharon Pickup, 202-512-9619 or pickups@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact named above, Patricia Lentini, Assistant
Director; Nicole Harms; Mae Jones; Susan Langley; Michael Silver; Amie
Steele; Matthew Ullengren; and Chris Watson made significant
contributions to this report.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] DOD Directive 1322.18, Military Training (Jan. 13, 2009).
[2] See GAO, Military Training: DOD Needs a Strategic Plan and Better
Inventory and Requirements Data to Guide Development of Language
Skills and Regional Proficiency, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-568] (Washington, D.C.: June 19,
2009) and Military Training: Actions Needed to Improve Planning and
Coordination of Army and Marine Corps Language and Culture Training,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-456] (Washington, D.C.:
May 26, 2011).
[3] H.R. Rep. No. 111-491 at 259 (2010).
[4] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-456].
[5] DOD measures an individual's language proficiency using the
Defense Language Proficiency Test system of tests. Service members who
complete a test are given an Interagency Language Roundtable score for
listening, reading, and speaking proficiency as measured on a scale
from 0 (no proficiency) to 5 (functionally native proficiency). For
culture, DOD has established broad guidelines for regional
proficiency, which includes cultural awareness, but the department has
not yet established a way to test or otherwise evaluate the culture
knowledge and skills of service members in accordance with these
guidelines.
[6] DOD Instruction 5160.71, DOD Language Testing Program (Jan. 26,
2009) defines significant language training as at least 150 hours of
immersion training or 6 consecutive weeks of 5-hour-a-day classroom
training. The instruction also includes an "other significant event as
defined by the Secretaries of the Military Departments and the Heads
of Defense Agencies and DOD Field Activities" in its definition of
significant language training.
[7] See, for example, Department of Defense Instruction 5160.70,
Management of DOD Language and Regional Proficiency Capabilities (June
12, 2007); Army Headquarters Execution Order 070-11, Army Culture and
Foreign Language Strategy (Dec. 27, 2010); and Marine Corps Order
7220.52E, Foreign Language Proficiency Pay (FLPP) Program (June 6,
2006).
[8] See, for example, Department of Defense Instruction 5160.70,
Management of DOD Language and Regional Proficiency Capabilities (June
12, 2007); Army Headquarters Execution Order 070-11, Army Culture and
Foreign Language Strategy (Dec. 27, 2010); Marine Corps Language,
Regional and Culture Strategy: 2011-2015 (January 2011); and
Department of Defense Strategic Plan for Language Skills, Regional
Expertise, and Cultural Capabilities (2011-2016) (February 2011).
[9] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-456].
[10] Army Headquarters Execution Order 273-10, For Culture and
Language Pre-deployment Training Standards (July 23, 2010).
[11] Commandant of the Marine Corps, Culture and Language Pre-
deployment Training Requirement (Feb. 16, 2010).
[12] Department of Defense Instruction 5160.70, Management of DOD
Language and Regional Proficiency Capabilities (June 12, 2007).
[13] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-568].
[14] According to Department of Defense Instruction 5160.70,
Management of DOD Language and Regional Proficiency Capabilities (June
12, 2007), regional proficiency skills encompass an awareness and
understanding of the cultural and other factors, such as historical,
political, sociological, economic, and geographic factors of a foreign
country or specific global region.
[15] See, for example, Army Headquarters Execution Order 070-11, Army
Culture and Foreign Language Strategy (Dec. 27, 2010) and Marine Corps
Order 7220.52E, Foreign Language Proficiency Pay (FLPP) Program (June
6, 2006).
[16] Army Regulation 350-1, Army Training and Leader Development (Dec.
18, 2009). Although this policy requires that all units utilize the
Digital Training Management System, we and the Army Audit Agency have
previously reported that Army units have not consistently used the
Digital Training Management System to track training completion. See
GAO, Military Training: Actions Needed to Further Improve the
Consistency of Combat Skills Training Provided to Army and Marine
Corps Support Forces, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-465] (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 16,
2010) and U.S. Army Audit Agency, Digital Training Management System,
A-2011-0075-FFT (Mar. 10, 2011).
[17] Army Headquarters Execution Order 273-10, For Culture and
Language Pre-deployment Training Standards (July 23, 2010).
[18] Army Headquarters Execution Order 070-11, Army Culture and
Foreign Language Strategy (Dec. 27, 2010).
[19] The Army standard is for at least one leader per platoon to
achieve a level 0+ in speaking and listening, described as memorized
proficiency, with a goal of a level 1, described as elementary
proficiency. According to Army data, more than 99 percent of soldiers
achieved a level 0+ in the speaking modality, 34 percent of soldiers
achieved a level 1, and 5 percent of soldiers achieved a level 1+
(elementary proficiency, plus).
[20] Army Regulation 11-6, Army Foreign Language Program (Aug. 31,
2009).
[21] An Army official cited one error in which she was listed within
the Total Army Personnel Database as an Interagency Language
Roundtable skill level 4 linguist whose knowledge is based on
residency in a foreign country whereas she is a level 2 DOD-trained
linguist.
[22] Marine Corps Order 3502.6, Marine Corps Force Generation Process
(Apr. 29, 2010).
[23] Marine Corps Language, Regional and Culture Strategy 2011-2015
(January 2011).
[24] Apart from predeployment training, the Marine Corps has begun
documenting language and regional proficiency training, education, and
experience information for its regional, culture, and language
familiarization career development program within service-level
systems. For example, the Marine Corps is recording marines'
assignments to specific regions within the Marine Corps Total Force
System, and is documenting marines' completion of the program's
mandatory computer-based language and other region and culture
training within the Marine Corps Training Information Management
System.
[25] DOD Instruction 5160.71, DOD Language Testing Program (Jan. 26,
2009), and Marine Corps Order 7220.52E, Foreign Language Proficiency
Pay (FLPP) Program (June 6, 2006) define significant language training
as at least 150 hours of immersion training or 6 weeks of 5 hours a
day of classroom training. The definition also includes an "other
significant event as defined by the Secretaries of the Military
Departments and the Heads of Defense Agencies and DOD Field
Activities" in the definition.
[26] According to the Defense Language Institute Foreign Language
Center, the Very Low Range Defense Language Proficiency Test is
explicitly designed to make distinctions among personnel with language
proficiency skill levels of 0+, 1, and 1+.
[27] Department of Defense Instruction 5160.70, Management of DOD
Language and Regional Proficiency Capabilities (June 12, 2007).
[28] Army Headquarters Execution Order 070-11, Army Culture and
Foreign Language Strategy (Dec. 27, 2010).
[29] Marine Corps Language, Regional and Culture Strategy: 2011-2015
(January 2011).
[30] Marine Corps Administrative Message 195/11, FY2011 Marine Corps
Foreign Language Proficiency Pay (Mar. 28, 2011).
[31] Department of Defense Strategic Plan for Language Skills,
Regional Expertise, and Cultural Capabilities (2011-2016) (February
2011).
[32] Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center Pamphlet 350-
9, Guidelines, Policies and Procedures for DOD Command Language
Programs (Nov. 1, 1995).
[33] The language component of the Regional, Culture, and Language
Familiarization program is intended to provide basic language
familiarization to support general purpose force marines' ability to
build rapport, establish credibility, and apply specific words and
phrases in a target language necessary to conduct military missions.
[34] DOD Instruction 5160.71, DOD Language Testing Program (Jan. 26,
2009).
[35] Department of Defense Instruction 5160.70, Management of DOD
Language and Regional Proficiency Capabilities (June 12, 2007).
[36] DOD measures an individual's language proficiency using the
Defense Language Proficiency Test system of tests. Service members who
complete a test are given an Interagency Language Roundtable score for
listening, reading, and speaking proficiency as measured on a scale
from 0 (no proficiency) to 5 (functionally native proficiency). For
culture, DOD has established broad guidelines for regional
proficiency, which includes cultural awareness, but the department has
not yet established a way to test or otherwise evaluate the culture
knowledge and skills of service members in accordance with these
guidelines.
[37] Department of Defense Instruction 5160.71, DOD Language Testing
Program (Jan. 26, 2009). The instruction also includes "a significant
event as defined by the Secretaries of the Military Departments and
the Heads of Defense Agencies and DOD Field Activities" in its
definition of significant language training.
[38] See, for example, Department of Defense Instruction 5160.70,
Management of DOD Language and Regional Proficiency Capabilities (June
12, 2007); Army Headquarters Execution Order 070-11, Army Culture and
Foreign Language Strategy (Dec. 27, 2010); and Marine Corps Order
7220.52E, Foreign Language Proficiency Pay (FLPP) Program (June 6,
2006).
[39] See, for example, Department of Defense Instruction 5160.70,
Management of DOD Language and Regional Proficiency Capabilities (June
12, 2007); Army Headquarters Execution Order 070-11, Army Culture and
Foreign Language Strategy (Dec. 27, 2010); Marine Corps Language,
Regional and Culture Strategy: 2011-2015 (January 2011); and
Department of Defense Strategic Plan for Language Skills, Regional
Expertise, and Cultural Capabilities (2011-2016) (February 2011).
[40] Commander International Security Assistance Force/U.S. Forces
Afghanistan Memorandum, Training Guidance for Language Training (Jan.
24, 2010).
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
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 GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
