ExpectMore.gov


Detailed Information on the
Department of Defense Training and Education Programs - Accession Training Assessment

Program Code 10003209
Program Title Department of Defense Training and Education Programs - Accession Training
Department Name Dept of Defense--Military
Agency/Bureau Name Department of Defense--Military
Program Type(s) Direct Federal Program
Assessment Year 2005
Assessment Rating Moderately Effective
Assessment Section Scores
Section Score
Program Purpose & Design 100%
Strategic Planning 100%
Program Management 86%
Program Results/Accountability 67%
Program Funding Level
(in millions)
FY2007 $877
FY2008 $1,037
FY2009 $1,221
*Note: funding shown for a program may be less than the actual program amount in one or more years because part of the program's funding was assessed and shown in other PART(s).

Ongoing Program Improvement Plans

Year Began Improvement Plan Status Comments
2006

Assessed the effectiveness of the programs and realigned resources as necessary to ensure the best possible balance and return on investment.

Enacted DoD used the measures and processes in place to assess program effectiveness and realign resources as necessary to meet strategic requirements and ensure balance and best return on investment.
2006

Reviewed performance measures used to manage the program and revised them as necessary to develop the most useful and accurate indicators.

Enacted DoD determined that current measures are the most useful and accurate indicators, and found no current requirement to revise them. In some cases DoD is delaying by three months the submission of data supporting the measures to allow the military Services to collect better data.
2006

Evaluating performance of accession training graduates with an eye toward increasing training effectiveness.

Action taken, but not completed The Services continue to evaluate performance of accession training by a variety of means to increase the effectiveness. One example is a US Army study ongoing in Nov 2006 studying the ??biology of stress?? in new recruits.
2007

Continuing to assess the effectiveness of the programs and realign resources as necessary to ensure the best possible balance and return on investment.

Action taken, but not completed New Improvement Plan action.
2007

Continuing review of performance measures used to manage the program and revising them as necessary to develop the most useful and accurate indicators.

Action taken, but not completed New Improvement Plan action.

Completed Program Improvement Plans

Year Began Improvement Plan Status Comments

Program Performance Measures

Term Type  
Annual Efficiency

Measure: Cost of accession training per individual enlisted service member.


Explanation:The DoD reviews the basic training cost per enlisted service member for each quarter of each fiscal year as part of its monitoring of the balanced scorecard. The balanced scorecard is one component of the President's Management Agenda. The Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness makes resourcing decisions among the services based on these data with the goal of maintaining reasonable costs for this program. This measure is a weighted average of cost per recruit for all four services. Source BA3 budget documents. These targets are adjusted annually and within budget years to correlate with changing requirements.

Year Target Actual
2004 $8,932 $8,739
2005 $9,395 $9,538
2006 $10,254 $8,292
2007 $8,914 $8,146
2008 $8,757
2009 $9,414
Long-term Outcome

Measure: Personnel Readiness of Military Forces. DOD measures the readiness of units to perform their missions. DOD's long term goal is to have sufficient numbers of highly trained and ready units. Many of DOD's missions are long-term in nature and demand high readiness for these units. DOD military and civilian leaders and Congress use these ratings to determine whether military readiness to perform these critical missions is adequate.


Explanation:C-level indicates the capability of personnel to perform military missions. Unit commanders assign C-level ratings based on the commander's judgment whether he/she has sufficient amounts of trained and ready troops. The following are C-level definitions: C-1 Minor deficiencies with negligible impact C-2 Some deficiencies with limited impact C-3 Significant deficiencies preventing some training mission C-4 Major deficiencies that preclude satisfactory institutional training mission accomplishment. The unit-level "C-ratings" are aggregated to determine the readiness of larger units to perform critical military missions (e.g. executing war plans). Tha "actual" C-rating is classified and shown here as "n/a".

Year Target Actual
2004 Classified Classified
2005 Classified Classified
2006 Classified Classified
2007 Classified Classified
2008 Classified Classified
2009 Classified Classified
2010 Classified Classified
2011 Classified Classified
2012 Classified Classified
2013 Classified Classified
Long-term Outcome

Measure: Officer Accession Training. This measure provides the percentage of personnel successfully completing Officer accession training. These personnel have completed the training and have been tested to ensure that they have acquired all the skills and knowledge necessary to go on to the next phase of their training. The standards against which these troops are trained are rigorous and have been developed by military services based on lessons learned from combat and operational experience. By definition, troops that graduate from this program have achieved a high level of proficiency in critical military skills.


Explanation:This metric indicates how well the officer accession training program is producing trained and ready graduates. This metric also measures the completion rate for students by comparing the actual number of students that graduate from training to the planned number. Students that successfully graduate are considered ready to move on to individual skill training. The long term goal takes into account the needs of field units for adequate numbers of trained and ready graduates. The long term goal also accounts for normal student attrition. The officer accesion program covered in this measure are: Service Academies, Senior (college-level) Reserve Office Training Corps (ROTC), and Officer Candidate/Training Schools (OCS/OTS) and aggregates the results for all four military services. Source: BA -3 budget documents.

Year Target Actual
2004 90% 98.0%
2005 90% 98.3%
2006 90% 96.4%
2007 90% 98.1%
2008 90%
2009 90%
2010 90%
2011 90%
2012 90%
2013 90%
Long-term Outcome

Measure: Enlisted Accession Training. This measure provides the percentage of personnel successfully completing enlisted.accession training (recruit training). These personnel have completed the training and have been tested to ensure that they have acquired all the skills and knowledge necessary to go on to the next phase of their training or in some cases to be sent to a military unit. The standards against which these troops are trained are rigorous and have been developed by the military services based on lessons learned from combat and operational experience. By definition, troops that graduate from this program have achieved a high level of proficiency in critical military skills.


Explanation:This metric indicates how well the enlisted accession training program is producing trained and ready graduates. This metric also measures the completion rate for students by comparing the actual number of students that graduate from training to the planned number. Students that successfully graduate are considered ready to move on to individual skill training. The long term goal takes into account the needs of field units for adequate numbers of trained and ready graduates. The long term goal also accounts for normal student attrition. This measure includes all four military services. Source: BA -3 budget documents.

Year Target Actual
2003 90.0% 96.4%
2004 90.0% 95.7%
2005 90.0% 95.4%
2006 90.0% 94.7%
2007 90.0% 91.8%
2008 90.0%
2009 90.0%
2010 90.0%
2011 90.0%
2012 90.0%
2013 90.0%
Annual Output

Measure: Assessment of Institutional Training Readiness. This measure assesses the readiness of staffing, equipment, and facilities at DOD training institutions to support the education of service members in specialized skills. These ratings are denoted as "C-ratings". The "C-ratings" show whether institutions are in varying states of readiness C-1 (very ready) or go down to C-4 (not ready) to provide training.


Explanation:C-level indicates the capability to perform required institutional training mission. Activity commanders assign C-level ratings based on TW-level ratings (measure 5) and the commander's judgment (which includes an assessment of Institutional Training Mission Support - manpower, equipment and facilities). The following are C-level definitions: C-1 Minor deficiencies with negligible impact C-2 Some deficiencies with limited impact C-3 Significant deficiencies preventing some training mission C-4 Major deficiencies that preclude satisfactory institutional training mission accomplishment From ITRR Tables 1-1, 2-1, 3-1, and 4-1.

Year Target Actual
2004 Baseline 1.5
2005 <2.0 1.25
2006 <2.0 1.25
2007 <2.0 1.25
2008 <2.0
2009 <2.0
Annual Output

Measure: Success in Recruit Training Program. Training Workload is a measure tracking the amount of training activities that are planned in a year against the activities that actually take place.


Explanation:TW-levels are expressed as the percent of planned training actually conducted. They are calculated by dividing for each fiscal year the actual training workload in hours by planned training workload in hour expressed as a percent. The following are the standardized TW-level ratings in percentage metrics: TW-1 = >90% TW-2 = >80% <90% TW-3 = >70% <80% TW-4 = <70% This PART covers the recruit training for all four military services (Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps). Therefore, this measure is an average of recruit training workload from all four services. This measure is a short-term measure. DoD measures itself each year to ensure it meets its annual goals and therefore has resourced the program properly. DoD also uses these data to assess the effectiveness of the program and identify problems with the program achieving the goal. From Institutional Training Readiness Report (ITRR) Tables 1-1, 2-1, 3-1, and 4-1

Year Target Actual
2004 <2.0 1.25
2005 <2.0 2.25
2006 <2.0 1.25
2007 <2.0 1.25
2008 <2.0
2009 <2.0

Questions/Answers (Detailed Assessment)

Section 1 - Program Purpose & Design
Number Question Answer Score
1.1

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: "The Accession Training Program provides initial military training to the newest members of all of the military Services, who typically have little or no prior military experience. The program's goal is to produce an adequate number of trained personnel to meet the manpower needs of the military. The activities within Accession Training can be arranged in four groups: ?? Officer acquisition: Includes the Service Academies (Army, Navy, and Air Force); prep schools for the academies; and officer candidate school and similar programs that result in an officer commission ?? Recruit training: Each Service's activities to indoctrinate new members into military service ?? One station unit training: An Army-only activity that combined basic (recruit) training and initial skill training for soldiers who are headed for combat units. ?? Senior ROTC: Program that provides scholarships, textbooks, equipment, and other support to college students who participate in military classes and training, resulting in a commission after graduation The activities within this program operate under both legal requirements and mission requirements. One legal requirement is Title 10, Section 671, which states, ""A member of the armed forces may not be assigned to active duty on land outside the United States and its territories and possessions until the member has completed the basic training requirements of the armed force of which he is a member."" Every activity in the program has a concise mission statement. Two examples: ?? U. S. Military Academy at West Point: To educate, train, and inspire the Corps of Cadets so that each graduate is a commissioned leader of character committed to the values of Duty, Honor, Country; professional growth throughout a career as an officer in the United States Army; and a lifetime of selfless service to the nation. ?? Marine Corps Recruit Depot/Eastern Recruiting Region Parris Island, SC: To recruit, train, and support the making of basic U.S. Marines for follow-on training and service in the Corps."

Evidence: "Title 10, Section 671. The Department of Defense (DoD) Institutional Training Readiness Report (ITRR) states: "The primary objective of individual training is to provide the operational forces with personnel who are adequately trained to assume jobs in both Active and Reserve military units. One of the cornerstones of readiness is the conduct of effective individual training at Service training institutions." [Executive Summary, pg. E-5] Title 10, Section 2102 states, ""For the purpose of preparing selected students for commissioned service in the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps, the Secretary of each military department, under regulations prescribed by the President, may establish and maintain a Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps program, organized into one or more units, at any accredited civilian educational institution authorized to grant baccalaureate degrees, and at any school essentially military that does not confer baccalaureate degrees, upon the request of the authorities at that institution."" DoD Directive 1322.18 addresses military training from a strategic level. DoDD 1322.22 provides policy guidance for the Service academies. Each Service has instructions that state the purpose of activities within the program. ?? Army: Army Regulation 350-1, Army Training and Education; sections 3-22 through 3-26 state purpose. ?? Navy: various, such as SECNAVINST 1531.2A, USNA Mission. ?? Marine Corps: Marine Corps Order 1510.121A; Marine Corps Common Skills Program. ?? Air Force: Air Force Education and Training Strategic Plan. Air Force Doctrine Document (AFDD) 1-1, Air Force Instructions (AFI) 36-2201, Air Force Training Program Sources for mission statements cited: US Military Academy website (http://www.usma.edu/mission.asp) and US Marine Corps Recruit Depot website (http://www.mcrdpi.usmc.mil/stratplan/strat_plan.htm)."

YES 20%
1.2

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: "The military Services are legally required to organize, train, and equip forces to perform military missions. A critical means of achieving this objective is to access and train an adequate number of military members. The Services determine the level of personnel needed to staff their military units and request, through the President's Budget request, certain manpower levels. What Congress then approves in law sets the manpower levels for each military Service. Recruits are needed to staff military units. These new service members, both enlisted and officer, require accession training to make them members of cohesive and effective units. Training at this stage is based on broad Service missions and expected operational environments identified in doctrine and mission statements. Training is essential for producing an adequate number of trained personnel to meet the manpower needs of the military. Title 10, Section 671 requires all members of the armed forces complete basic training requirements before they can be assigned to active duty on land outside the United States and its territories and possessions. Title 10, Section 2102 allows the Secretaries of the military departments to establish and maintain a Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps program at any accredited civilian educational institution authorized to grant baccalaureate degrees. Service Academies established in Title 10: 1. Air Force Academy (Section 9331); 2. United States Military Academy (Section 4331); and 3. United States Naval Academy (Section 6951). The Army also uses a program called One Station Unit Training (OSUT) to train soldiers headed for infantry and certain other combat units. This is a much more efficient process. Normally, an Army recruit would attend Basic Training (Boot Camp) at one installation, and attend Advanced Individual Training (AIT) at a different unit (possibly at a different installation). With OSUT, Basic Skills Training and AIT are combined and training is completed within the same unit. This effort to consolidate training not only reduces the amount of time required to train recruits (thereby reducing the time to fill man-power gaps on the battlefield), it also eliminates the costs associated with transferring the trainee to the next unit. "

Evidence: "Title 10, Section 671 states, ""A member of the armed forces may not be assigned to active duty on land outside the United States and its territories and possessions until the member has completed the basic training requirements of the armed force of which he is a member."" Title 10, Section 2102 states, ""For the purpose of preparing selected students for commissioned service in the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps, the Secretary of each military department, under regulations prescribed by the President, may establish and maintain a Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps program, organized into one or more units, at any accredited civilian educational institution authorized to grant baccalaureate degrees, and at any school essentially military that does not confer baccalaureate degrees, upon the request of the authorities at that institution."" Title 10, Section 9331(a) states, ""There is in the Department of the Air Force an Air Force Academy (hereinafter in this chapter referred to as the 'Academy') for the instruction and preparation for military service of selected persons called 'Air Force cadets.'" Title 10, Section 4331(a) states, ""There is in the Department of the Army a United States Military Academy, at West Point, New York (hereinafter in this chapter referred to as the 'Academy'), for the instruction and preparation for military service of selected persons called 'cadets.'"" Title 10, Section 6951 states, ""The United States Naval Academy shall be located at Annapolis, Maryland."" Descriptions of One Station Unit Training (OSUT) as essential to basic training for combat, from Army Pamphlet 611-21, page 921, as well as the US Army official website, www.goarmy.com/JobDetail.do?id=47 "

YES 20%
1.3

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: "Accession training aims to accomplish a unique set of goals: providing initial training to new members of the military. This requirement is not found in other private or government activities. Organizations such as police departments and the US Coast Guard train new members that will eventually join units, but they do not aim toward participating in full combat involving weapons such as tanks, bomber aircraft, and missile-armed ships. The accession training program within each service is focused on providing specialized individual and group skills for that Service; to develop civilians into military personnel that fit the mission of the Service. During accession training, personnel are immersed in Service-unique thinking and culture. For example, the Marine Corps states that its intent is ""to transform civilians into trained Marines; with core values... to win the Nation's battles?? instill stamina and toughness"" (Marine Corps Order 1510.32D). The Army will train some personnel in skills for a Fire Support Specialist; requirements are outlined in the Department of the Army Pamphlet 611-21. These military component requirements and skill sets are not found or duplicated in any other organization -- Federal, state, local or private. Although some states have ""accession"" programs to support the National Guard, training is provided by the Active Component for their respective National Guard Bureau recruits. "

Evidence: "Marine Corps Order 1510.32D, Subject: Recruit Training. Department of the Army Pamphlet 611-21, page 257, paragraph 10-53. United State Code (USC), Title 32, National Guard, Chapter 5, Training. Army Regulation (AR) 350-1, Army Training and Education. National Guard Regulation (NGR) 351-5. "

YES 20%
1.4

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: "Each Service has a dedicated organization to supervise activities that conduct Accession Training. Leaders and managers at all levels, quality assurance, auditors, instructional systems development processes, and other efforts help identify and remove major flaws in order to reach the maximum "C" level ratings. These ""C-ratings"" are the main measure of military readiness for all units of the U.S. military. Measure 1 - Institutional Training Readiness is a "C"-level" is used to measure the readiness of training institutions that incorporate quantitative and qualitative measures. Each training institution's commander will assign C-level rating based upon training workload level rating (Measure 5) and the commander's judgment. Effectiveness measures are reported in the DoD Institutional Training Readiness Report (ITRR), an unclassified annex to the Quarterly Readiness Report to the Congress. Recent ITRRs have shown favorable results of Accession Training activities. As an example of activities within the program seeking to eliminate major flaws, the Air Force recently took aggressive steps to improve institutional processes and structure at the United States Air Force Academy (USAFA)."

Evidence: "The most recent completed Institutional Training Readiness Report (ITRR), dated January 2005, provides the C-level ratings. A "C-level" is an assessment of institutional training readiness that incorporates quantitative and qualitative measures. The Commander will assign C-level ratings based upon training workload (TW) level ratings and the commander's judgment (which will include an assessment of Institutional Training Mission Support - manpower, equipment and facilities). The following are C-level definitions. C-1: Only minor deficiencies with negligible impact on capability to perform required institutional training mission. C-2: Some deficiencies with limited impact on capabilities to perform required institutional training mission. C-3: Significant deficiencies that prevent institution(s) from performing some training missions. C-4: Major deficiencies that preclude satisfactory institutional training mission accomplishment. On target ratings: ""If any training category is rated C-3 or below, a narrative description of the problem, its causes, and plans to correct the problem will be provided. Commander's comments are also required when the C-level rating for a category of training is higher or lower than the corresponding TW-level rating."" The de facto target is C-2 or C-1. (Note: These "C" ratings are UNCLASSIFIED) The most recent ITRR reported the following C-ratings: ?? Army (Active Component) Recruit Training: C-1 ?? Army (Active Component) Officer Acquisition: C-2 ?? Army (Active Component) One Station Unit Training: C-1 ?? Navy Recruit Training: C-1 ?? Navy Officer Acquisition: C-1 ?? Marine Corps Recruit Training: C-2 ?? Marine Corps Officer Acquisition: C-1 ?? Air Force Recruit Training: C-2 ?? Air Force Officer Acquisition: C-1 "USAFA Culture Change - Agenda for Change" White Paper, April 2005."

YES 20%
1.5

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: "As noted above, the military services are legally required to organize, train and equip military forces. The services need adequate numbers of trained and ready troops for their units. New recruits are given intial training through the Accession Training program. After this initial training, troops receive additional training in other programs. Ultimately, all of the troops that graduate from this rigorous training program join military units to fulfill the military service's requirement to organize, train and equip forces. DoD allocates resources to provide trained recruits to the military units. Training resources include instructor staff, facilities, equipment, and funding. The number of new recruits that need training drives funding requirements. Officials can adjust funding if accession requirements change. Detailed budget documents ensure that resources support each program's purpose. The DoD Comptroller conducts a mid-year review of all programs. During this review, the effectiveness of these programs are examined, and the Department can adjust funding levels to ensure that adequate resources support the program. The Institutional Training Readiness Report (ITRR) provides an annual recap of how effectively the resources supported the program's purpose. It uses a Training Workload measure (TW), that shows the percent of planned training actually conducted. This metric indicates whether DoD used resources for training as intended. The military services use complex models to conduct detailed planning and tie resources to planned outputs. An example is the Army Institutional Training Resource Model (ITRM), which provides a readiness justification for funding requirements. ITRM documents the student load needed to support the force structure and the resources needed to provide the requisite training"

Evidence: "DoD budget exhibits for Army and Air Force Officer Acquisition demonstrate how the funding for accession training is programmed, budgeted, and obligated in a targeted manner by each service. For example, the Army exhibit for Officer Acquisition--which includes the US Military Academy and Officer Candidate School (OCS)--shows the amount actually spent in FY2004, requested in the Budget in FY2005, and planned for FY2006 and 07. Detailed descriptions of the funded operations are provided.

YES 20%
Section 1 - Program Purpose & Design Score 100%
Section 2 - Strategic Planning
Number Question Answer Score
2.1

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: "The Accession Training program uses long-term performance measures at all levels to support the stated purpose of the program to provide initial training to new military personnel. In accordance with DoD's Planning, Programming, Budget and Execution (PPBE) process plans are made, goals are set, and budgets are developed within the context of a Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) that look out six years to improve planning and budgeting effectiveness while considering emerging needs and threats. Budget figures are revised and submitted annually. The following metrics are used by the military services to determine if personnel in units are trained and ready (Measure 2). In addition, the metrics measure whether sufficient amounts of adequately trained troops are available to the services to staff their units. Having a sufficient amount of trained troops is critical to meeting the military's goal to organize, train and equip forces. Measure 2 - Personnel Readiness of Military Forces. DoD measures the readiness of units to perform their missions. DoD's long term goal is to have sufficient numbers of highly trained and ready units. Many of DoD's missions are long-term in nature and demand high readiness for these units. This readiness or ""C-rating"" metric is based on a commander's assessment of his/her unit's ability to perform its mission. The metric measures whether the unit has a sufficient number of well-trained personnel as well as capable equipment and other activity indicators. DoD military and civilian leaders and Congress use these ratings to determine whether military readiness to perform these critical missions is adequate. The "actual" C-rating for personnel readiness is classified. Measure 3 - Officer Accession Training. This metric indicates how well the officer accession training program is producing trained and ready officer graduates. This metric also measures the completion rate for students by comparing the actual number of students that graduate from training to the planned number. Students that successfully graduate are considered ready to move on to individual skill training. These personnel have completed the training and have been tested against rigorous standards to ensure that they have acquired all the skills and knowledge necessary to go on to the next phase of their training. This long-term goal measure into account the needs of field units for adequate numbers of trained and ready graduates. The long-term goal for this measure is to achieve 90% of the planned number of officer accessions. Measure 4 - Enlisted Accession Training. This metric is similar to the measure above, except it evaluates enlisted gradutes. These personnel have completed the training and have been tested against rigorous standards to ensure that they have acquired all the skills and knowledge necessary to go on to the next phase of their training or in some cases to be sent to a military unit. This long-term measure takes into account the needs of field units for adequate numbers of trained and ready graduates. The long-term goal for this measure is to achieve 90% of the planned number of enlisted personnel successfully complete recruit training. Quality of personnel trained is accomplished through each service's use of core training standards. These ensure that Accession Training Output leads to acceptable Outcomes. Core training standards require members to be tested against rigorous standards before moving to the next level of training. An example is found in Marine Corps graduation requirements for completion of recruit training. These include: pass the physical fitness test, qualify at Combat Water Survival 4 level, and pass a martial arts tan belt examination. As cited in Marine Corps Order 1510.32D, "When attempts to bring deficient recruits to satisfactory levels of knowledge, conditioning, discipline, or skill have failed, separation of the recruit will be accomplished.""

Evidence: "C-level indicates the capability to perform required institutional training mission. Activity commanders assign C-level ratings based on TW-level ratings and the commander's judgment (which includes an assessment of Institutional Training Mission Support - manpower, equipment and facilities). The following are C-level definitions: C-1 Minor deficiencies with negligible impact C-2 Some deficiencies with limited impact C-3 Significant deficiencies preventing some training mission C-4 Major deficiencies that preclude satisfactory institutional training mission accomplishment. The unit-level ""C-ratings"" are aggregated to determine the readiness of larger units to perform critical military missions (e.g. executing war plans). C-Rating is provided in SORTs report, which are classified. BA3 budget documents, such as the Exhibit OP-5, are presented for all Services officer accession activities. Another set of budget documents covers all Services' enlisted recruit training activities. MCO 1510.32D, dated 25 Aug 03."

YES 12%
2.2

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: "Long - term targets discussed above are established by senior Service leaders based on mission requirements. In many cases, military missions are recurring in nature and are tasked to units for extended periods (e.g., Navy deployments in support of overseas presence missions). Units tasked with performing military missions need a continuous stream of adequate numbers of trained personnel equipped with certain skills to replenish ranks or enhance unit capabilities. The personnel and training requirements to staff these units are integrated by the military services and DOD into long term goals and budget plans. Measure 2: Personnel Readiness of Military Forces. The target of a readiness rating of 2.0 or higher proves that DoD has an ambitious, long-term readiness target, despite continuous pressures of a high operational pace of military engagements in wartime. For Measures 3 and 4, the target of 90% reflects the need for program to produce a sufficient level of highly-trained and ready graduates that have been planned. If fewer graduates are produced than planned this could have an adverse impact on military readiness to perform missions. The goals are carefully calibrated to balance unit needs with training program capabilities. Measure 3: Measures the percentage of planned officer accessions that is to be achieved over the next six years. The target of 90% refers to a sufficient planned output level in number of officers. This reflects detailed planning, the consideration of force structure and manpower requirements, varying retention, funding levels, and many other factors. Expected attrition and other losses have already been considered in setting the production number. Measure 4: The percentage of planned enlisted personnel completing recruit training is analogous to the preceding measure, as is the target of 90%. "

Evidence: "Measure 2: DoD's Quarterly Montioring the Status of Forces Report (classified document), show the quarterly and cumulative annual unit readiness ratings. Measures 3 and 4: Institutional Training Readiness Report (ITRR) Tables 1-1, 2-1, 3-1, and 4-1, with explanatory notes. Dept. of the Air Force FY2006/2007 Budget Estimates for Subactivity Group 31B Recruit Training, Exhibit OP-5 showing input, output, and workload (student-year equivalents) through FY2007. Air University Strategic Plan 2005-2010. Army Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1, memorandum of 22 Feb 2005, Officer Candidate School (OCS) and Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC) Officer Accession Mission -- FY06-10."

YES 12%
2.3

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: "This program has annual performance measures that determine annual progress towards achieving long-term goals established in the six-year Future Years Defense Plan. Measure 1 - Is used as an annual measure to assess the readiness of DoD institutions to train new recruits. It is described in detail in the previous section. Measure 5 - Training Workload is a measure tracking the amount of training activities that are planned in a year against the activities that actually take place. "

Evidence: "Institutional Training Readiness Report (ITRR) explanation of C-level rating and Tables 1-1, 2-1, 3-1, and 4-1. ITRR page E-13 includes these comments on rating goals: ""If any training category is rated C-3 or below, a narrative description of the problem, its causes, and plans to correct the problem will be provided. Commander's comments are also required when the C-level rating for a category of training is higher or lower than the corresponding TW-level rating."" The de facto target is C-2 or C-1. Budget Exhibit OP-5 pages for all Services for subactivity groups ""Officer Acquisition"" and ""Senior Reserve Officer Training Corps."" (No Marine Corps OP-5 for Senior ROTC as it is handled within Navy ROTC.) Another set of OP-5 documents covers all Services' recruit training. The Army Initial Military Training (IMT) Review briefing slide lists performance measures and metric parameters to track the effect of accession training on desired force readiness. The 85% goal is highlighted."

YES 12%
2.4

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: "Targets for Accession Training are directly linked to Congresionally-mandated strength levels; they are not under the control of the program managers for Accession Training. Using the strength levels currently in law, the Services determine the number of graduates required to adequately staff their unit needs each year. The required number of graduates factors in the number of students that drop out of training as well as graduates required to move into units to replace departing unit personnel or needed to enhance unit capabilities. The required number of graduates factors in the number of students that drop out of training as well as the number of graduates either going on to basic individual skill training courses or the number required to move into units for the select group that complete their individual training at accession training, specifically those recruits in one station unit training (description of this training is in Question 1.1). Baselines are not useful proxies for this program because, as is stated above, program targets are not under the control of this program's managers. They are mandated by Congress in consultation with Service leaders. The target for Measure 1, the readiness rating for recruit training institutions, is C-2 or C-1 (explanation of C- rating is included in Question 2.3). The highest level (C-1) is not always required to accomplish an activity's mission and to effectively support the planned program. The Institutional Training readiness Report (ITRR) includes these notes on rating targets: ""If any training category is rated C-3 or below, a narrative description of the problem, its causes, and plans to correct the problem will be provided. Commander's comments are also required when the C-level rating for a category of training is higher or lower than the corresponding TW-level rating."" Therefore, the target is to achieve a C-rating no lower than C-2. Measure 6 - Cost of Accession Training per Enlisted Recruit Training Graduate, has ambitous annual targets developed from the baseline value from 2003. DoD uses these data to make resource decisions and to ensure that the costs of this program remain reasonable, while still providing highly-qualified graduates to replace military service members departing their position."

Evidence: "Budget Exhibit OP-5 pages for all Services for sub-activity groups ""Officer Acquisition"" and ""Senior Reserve Officer Training Corps."" (No Marine Corps OP-5 for Senior ROTC as it is handled within Navy ROTC.) The Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, 2004 Annual Report to the President and the Congress states ambitious goals for critical military skills. Army Regulation 350-10 identifies the Army Program for Individual Training (ARPRINT) as the mission document for Army accession training. The ARPRINT establishes baselines and targets. Institutional Training Readiness Report (ITRR) [page E-13] comments on rating goals. "

YES 12%
2.5

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: "The main program partners are the Services' recruiting organizations. Their mission is to ensure the security and readiness for our Nation by recruiting quality men and women for the various Services. Each service's recruiting organization receive monthly and annual recruiting goals. In turn, these organizations employ recruiters to seek out adequate numbers of quality recruits for the military. Without adequate numbers of quality recruits, the accession training program cannot meet its long-term or short-term goals. The people they recruit enter the accession training program to learn rudimentary military skills. "

Evidence: "Recruiting organizations include: U.S. Army Recruiting Command - Headed by a Commanding General, it is responsible for ""manning both the Active Army and the U.S. Army Reserve, ensuring security and readiness for our Nation."" (www.usarec.army.mil/info.html) Navy Recruiting Command - Headed by a Rear Admiral, its mission is ""to recruit the best quality men and women from the diverse population of our country to fill the Navy's ranks and focus on the outcomes by (1) Executing best business practices and (2) Maintaining an effective, motivated integrated active and reserve recruiting force."" (www.cnrc.navy.mil/about/about.htm) U.S. Air Force Recruiting Service - Headed by a Brigadiar General, its mission is ""to recruit quality men and women with the right skills, at the right time, in the right numbers to sustain the combat capability of America's Air Force."" Commanding General, Marine Recruiting - It is headed by a Brigadiar General. Its mission is to supply the Marine Coprs with quality men and women. The ITRR shows that accession training is accomplishing its long-term goal of providing the military services with adequately-trained soldiers. Each of the training commands assist in the preparation of the ITRR. The ITRR shows broad categories of accession training performance for each Service. The 2004 Annual Defense Report to the President and the Congress also shows that the military services succeeded in their goal of recruiting troops. "

YES 12%
2.6

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: "Accession Training activities at all levels are evaluated by independent organizations that are both military and non-military. The Government Accountability Office (GAO, formerly General Accounting Office) has published several studies on the program and its elements over the past few years. One of the more recent was titled ""MILITARY EDUCATION: Student and Faculty Perceptions of Student Life at the Military Academies,"" published September 2003. To illustrate the nature of this study, findings of the report include: ?? Over 90 percent of students rated their academic programs as good or excellent. ?? About a quarter to a third of students rated their academy's performance standards for developing military officers as too low. ?? About a quarter to a third of faculty agreed with student perceptions that performance standards for developing military officers were too low. The GAO made no recommendations in this report. Other GAO studies of accession training include: DEFENSE INFRASTRUCTURE: Central Training Funding Projected to Remain Stable During 1997-2003 (June 1998); MILITARY HOUSING: Costs of Separate Barracks for Male and Female Recruits in Basic Training (March 1999); MILITARY TRAINING: Its Effectiveness for Technical Specialties Is Unknown (October 1990). One of the most powerful independent evaluations is the Inspector General (IG) inspection or visit. All Services have IG branches; the Army Regulation is presented here as typical. IG activities are well-planned and thorough, as evidenced by the detailed descriptions in the regulation. major commands (such as Army Training and Doctrine Command) submit semi-annual reports up the chain of command ""summarizing the significant activities of auditors, investigators, inspectors, and their efforts to curb fraud, waste, and mismanagement."" Activities within the program are evaluated by a variety of independent organizations. An example at a lower level is the US Naval Academy, which is regularly examined by a Board of Visitors (BOV) that consists of nine Senators and Congressmen, plus six Presidential appointees from various fields such as private business, educational institutes, and retired Flag-Level Service members. The BOV meets quarterly to review ""the state of morale and discipline, the curriculum, instruction, physical equipment, fiscal affairs, academic methods and other matters relating to the Academy."" The BOV submits an annual report, one recent issue of which reported on implementation of the Naval Academy's strategic plan and its revision. Other assessments regularly conducted by activities include course content review boards and a wide variety of other local evaluations. An advantage of these is that their recommendations can be enacted quickly."

Evidence: "A GAO Study on Military Education (GAO-03-1000 of Sep 2003) stated: "To ensure the best value from the investment in the Academies, effective management principles are critical. Such principles include?? performance goals and measures against which to objectively assess performance." The GAO suggested metrics: graduation rates and demographic composition of classes. Army Regulation 20-1, Inspector General Activities and Procedures. United States Naval Academy Board of Visitors (USNA BOV) annual report to the President of the United States, January 20, 2001."

YES 12%
2.7

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: "The DoD Planning, Programming, Budget and Execution (PPBE) process requires budgeting based on resources needed to achieve goals. As part of the PPBE process, the Services submit OP-5 budget exhibits that provide detailed information on long-term performance goals at detailed program levels. OP-5 exhibits provide a level of information that would qualify as complete and transparent. Various sections of the OP-5 exhibits describe: the activity, such as Recruit Training. Section III provides summary financial information . Section IV provides performance criteria in terms used by the Services and Congress to justify the program. The Program Objective Memorandum (POM) clearly outlines resource requirements. Budget models are determined using historical program and financial data in combination with known or perceived changes to program elements (i.e. number of users, location of user populations, and future directives). Both annual and out year POM requests are tied to information provided by the forecasting models and identified needs of the programs. A complete accounting of the needs is available. Budget request documents for have charts available that indicate item by item the results of the forecasting models and requirements provided by the owners of the program. Such documents include the OP-5 and OP-14 in the FY06 President's Budget and include results of program expansion, enrollment, etc. The Monitoring the Status of the Force (MSOF) briefing, presented quarterly to Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) includes a measure of Budget and Performance Integration that tracks at a high level how well planning, evaluation, and budget staff work with program managers to create an integrated plan/budget, and monitor its implementation."

Evidence: "Marine Corps Exhibit OP-5 for Recruit Training (excerpts). Air Force Exhibit OP-5 for Recruit Training (excerpts). Monitoring the Status of the Force (MSOF) briefing slides."

YES 12%
2.8

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: DOD routinely takes meaningful steps to correct strategic planning deficiencies as deficiencies are identified. All Services produce annual strategic plans that guide the program to achieve prioritized capabilities, frequently informed by identified deficiencies or areas recognized as needing improvement. Additionally, corrective measures are reflected in annual service programs and budgets, better aligning resources to improve identified strategic planning deficiencies.

Evidence: "Annual report to the President and the Congress, pages 9-11 and 23. Air Force Air University Strategic Plan 2005-2010 (excerpts). USNA Strategic Plan (www.usna.edu/StrategicPlan) 2005 USNA Board of Visitors report to President noting deficiencies in the USNA baseline mission. Corrective measures were undertaken during the FY 2006 President's Budget Review, as shown by the Exhibit OP-5 for Officer Acquisition. AU Primary Mission Areas and Chronology."

YES 12%
Section 2 - Strategic Planning Score 100%
Section 3 - Program Management
Number Question Answer Score
3.1

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: "Agencies at all levels collect information that helps to improve accession training performance. The frequency of this information collection effort depends on the type (i.e., course completion, detachment from command, etc.) and the intended measurement purpose. At a high level, the Services and Office of the Secretary of Defense annually gather information on the percent of planned training workload that is actually conducted -- this is the Training Workload measure (TW) presented in the Institutional Training Readiness Report (ITRR). This information is shown in Performance Measure 5, ""recruit training program management effectiveness."" An example of a Service using the data is the Army's concluding statement: TRADOC (Army Training and Doctrine Command) will continue to realign its programs and efforts, as necessary, to ensure optimal support for established Army priorities and increased training requirements. TRADOC is committed to ensuring that the U.S. Army remains the world's best and looks forward to your support to realize the critical national requirement. In addition, the Services conduct their own regular assessments of activities within the program. Again, the purpose for which the information is being collected will determine the frequency of the data calls. Tracked information includes throughput and gaps between requirements and production, as well as more internally focused information such as course content reviews. On a monthly basis DOD carefully monitors the progress of its recruiting establishment which is a vital partner to meeting this program's goals. Each quarter, the Services meet with the Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness to report on the actual quantity and quality of their recruits against the goals previously established for that quarter. DOD monitors and reports to Congress and OMB, whether the military services are recruiting enough troops to fill positions required in accessions training."

Evidence: "FY 2004 Institutional Training and Readiness Report (ITRR), January 2005, page E-18 and other pages. Quarterly recruiting and retention update to OMB/Congress. DoD's quarterly recruiting data, including a comparison of actuals versus goals, can be found at www.dod.gov/prhome/mpprecruiting.html

YES 14%
3.2

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: "The military service secretary bears ultimate responsibility under Title 10 of the U.S. Code for organizing, training and equipping military service troops. Within each service, high-ranking military officers oversee the service-unique training commands which take in the new recruits and train them. The achievement of performance results is part of the military chain of command and accountability. Service training commands identify gaps between requirements and production to Service leaders in the Institutional Training and Readiness Report. Activity commanders that are not meeting their mission goals can have funds withdrawn and redirected based on Service priorities and needs. In addition, the Services conduct performance evaluations to rate commanders' performance. Field activities use the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to encourage savings as defined in FAR - - Part 48 or terminate contracts as outlined in FAR - - Part 49. Component instructions and references cite these DoD directives and instructions and use the FAR in rewarding and penalizing other government partners and contractors as the situation dictates. DoD's mid-year review examines funding execution data for efficiency and effectiveness for each of the services. It allows the Department to adjust resource allocations as required to meet new manning requirements. As a result of mid-year review, managers and partners are held accountable for the program's cost, and any deviations in program execution can be corrected."

Evidence: " For example, 10 USC 8013 explicitly makes the Secretary of the Air Force responsible for providing organized, trained, and equipped troops. The Army uses Department of the Army Form 67-9, ""Officer Evaluation Report,"" to rate its commanders. The Institutional Training and Readiness Report (ITRR), shows the amount of training goals that service training commands have completed."

YES 14%
3.3

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose?

Explanation: "Since these programs are funded with DOD's Operation and Maintenance (O&M) accounts, which expire annually, the program must obligate it in a timely manner or its funding lapses. These O&M accounts have Congressionally-mandated restrictions on transferring funds. No more than $15 million in a funding category within O&M can transferred to another activity without notifying Congress. In addition to routine monthly reviews of execution by financial personnel at all training activities, an annual comprehensive mid-year funding execution review is performed by DOD and OMB. This review determines whether training and other programs are obligating funds in a timely manner. The review also determines what corrective actions are required to properly align remaining resources with projected needs for the balance of the year. Department of Defense Form 1002 provides a detailed summary of program execution to ensure funding levels are appropriate for all programs. As a result of mid-year review, timely obligation of funds is ensured, and their proper use is confirmed. "

Evidence: "DoD Financial Management Regulation, DoD 7000.14-R (excerpts as noted). Air Force Exhibit OP-05, Subactivity Group 31A shows budget request for FY 2004, Officer Acquisition, to be $67.8M and the actual was $70.1M. The increase was the result of Fact-of-Life Changes. This is one year money that was executed. Army Exhibit OP-05, Subactivity Group 314 shows budget request for FY 2004 Senior Reserve Officers, to be $214.3M and the actual was $209.6. A large part of the decrease was the result of Congressional adjustments. The one year money was spent in a timely manner and for the intended purpose. Marine Corps Form 1002 excerpt."

YES 14%
3.4

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: "The Services continually measure program efficiency and effectiveness. Results of these reviews allow them to reallocate resources to achieve force management goals. Headquarters and field level activities track and review program performance and budget information through the Planning, Budget, and Midyear Review cycles. DoD and the Services' mid-year reviews examines funding execution data for efficiency and effectiveness. During mid-year review funding that was appropriated is compared to the funding that has been executed. DD Form 1002 (example included as evidence) provides a detailed summary of program execution to ensure funding levels are appropriate for all programs. These mid-year reviews could reveal additional resources to meet emerging requirements, or adjust the amount of resources in programs to ensure the proper level of funding is in place for all programs. As shown in Measure 7, the Cost of Accession Training per Enlisted Recruit Training Graduate, the DoD reviews the basic training cost per enlisted service member for each quarter of each fiscal year as part of its monitoring of the balanced scorecard. The balanced scorecard is one component of the President's Management Agenda. The Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness makes resourcing decisions among the services based on these data with the goal of maintaining reasonable costs for this program across services while ensuring that the program remains effective in providing highly qualified graduates to replace military service members departing their position. An all-Service activity chartered to improve effectiveness and efficiency of training is the Inter-Service Training Review Organization (ITRO). ITRO acts by realigning, standardizing, and consolidating activities, as well as seeking management improvements. (In Accession Training, ITRO includes only One Station Unit Training (OSUT) in its activities.) Examples of Service review efforts and accomplishments: ?? Air Force Basic Military Training (BMT) Review committee looks specifically for ways to train more efficiently. The review is required at least every three years (unless designated otherwise). A recent report (see evidence) indicates concerns for cost efficiency by increasing the use of multimedia training and other IT improvements, while maintaining effectiveness of BMT. ?? Navy Functional Area Managers (FAMs) have been established to review functionality of systems within their responsible area and develop a suite of systems, eliminating those with duplicative functionality. Examples of this are under the USMC Training and Education Command (TECOM) Training Integrated Management System (TIMS) and the Navy Human Performance Center and Navy Knowledge Online (NKO). Another example is the Navy's Enlisted Board Of Advisors (EBOA) and the Officer Board Of Advisors (OBOA), which meet semi-annually to evaluate Accession Training. As a result of the EBOA (see evidence), the Navy has reduced the length of boot camp from 63 days to 60 days by eliminating unnecessary or "overtraining." This will lead to an estimated cost savings of $20 million annually."

Evidence: "Multi-Service regulation/instruction titled: "Schools Interservice Training", 28 Aug 98. Section 4 states: "The Interservice Training Review Organization is an organization of the military Services, established to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of Service training consistent with individual Service requirements??.." Institutional Training Readiness Report (ITRR), January 2005, Air Force Basic Military Training (BMT) Review Report, 9 Nov 04. Marine Corps Training and Education Command (TECOM) website, with TIMS highlighted (www.tecom.usmc.mil). Naval Education and Training Command (NETC) website with Navy Knowledge Online (NKO) highlighted (www.nko.navy.mil). Navy Newsstand article dated 21 Jan 2004, ""Improvements to Training Streamline Navy Boot Camp."" "

YES 14%
3.5

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: "The accession training program collaborates with related programs that come before it and after it in the pipeline of military organizations responsible for turning citizens into combat-ready soldiers. Enlisted accession training activities (recruit training) work closely with recruiting activities - their predecessors in this pipeline - to manage details about attributes and handling of new enlisted service members. An illustration of collaboration is an organization in the Marine Corps: the commanding general of Marine Corps Recruit Depot in San Diego is also commanding general of the Marine Corps Western Recruiting Region, illustrating the value of recruit training and recruiters coordinating and collaborating. Recruit training activities also collaborate with their successor activities, the organizations that perform basic skills and advanced training. Another example: The Army's Field Artillery School provides Advanced Individual Training (AIT) for Army and Marine Corps personnel. While the Air Force (via its Joint Programs Division) provides instructors for the field artillery courses at all levels; from AIT to the Officers Advanced Course In August 2005, the Navy will be hosting an Accessions Training Research and Best Practices Symposium as a forum to share, discuss, and debate best practices and research concerning military accession training issues DoD-wide. This will be attended by members from the Navy, Marine Corps, Office of the Secretary of Defense (Military Personnel Policy), as well as personnel representing Army and Air Force Accessions policy. For the longer term, the DoD Training Transformation Implementation Plan is designed to provide dynamic, capabilities-based training for the DoD in support of national security requirements across active and Reserve components of the Services; Federal agencies; international coalition; international organizations; and state, local, and nongovernmental organization. Overall, Training Transformation is a continuous process designed to ensure that all individuals, units, staffs, and organizations, both military and civilian, receive timely and effective joint education and training necessary to accomplish the joint tasks that support the operational needs of combatant commanders. It will accomplish the following objectives (approximately by the year 2010): ?? Strengthen joint operations by preparing forces for new war fighting concepts ?? Continuously improve joint force readiness by aligning joint education and training capabilities and resources with combatant command needs ?? Develop individuals and organizations that think joint intuitively ?? Develop individuals and organizations that improvise and adapt to emerging crises ?? Achieve unity of effort from a diversity of means."

Evidence: "Bio for BGen John Paxton Jr., Commanding General, Marine Corps Recruit Depot San Diego and Western Recruiting Region. Navy Accessions Training Research and Best Practices Symposium announcement: www.nstc.navy.mil. DoD Training Transformation Implementation Plan, 9 Jun 04."

YES 14%
3.6

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: "DOD's financial management weaknesses have been well documented and affect all activities and organizations within the department. Specifically, organizations throughout DOD do not have a clean financial audit opinion at this time. To the greatest extent possible, however, financial managers follow extensive Service-level guidance and procedures, and their organizations undergo regular and rigorous audits and inspections. Systems meet minimum requirements and support daily operations. Programs do not have material internal control weaknesses. The Services are addressing existing financial management weaknesses. The Navy for example conducts an Operational Risk Management (ORM) assessment annually and is striving for an unqualified opinion on its FY07 financial statements."

Evidence: The Form 1002 report is used to monitor the spending of funds by program. All Services use the 1002; a Navy form from September 2004 is shown as an example. The 1002 shows appropriation, approved, revised, obligated, transaction, gross disbursement and ending obligation. This is the current tool that is rolled up into OSD OP5 reports.

NO 0%
3.7

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: The annual Institutional Training Readiness Report (ITRR) and Personnel Readiness of Military Forces measure has clear standards to evaluate the actual production against planned production to derive a training workload (TW) level and the readiness of trained personnel, respectively. These production levels are based on the skills requirements articulated by senior military leadership. Both the ITRR and the Readiness measure help senior military leaders determine if the quantity and quality of training is sufficient. For example, if a training command fails to reach minimum TW levels, the Commanding Officer must meet with the Immediate Superior in Command (ISIC) to determine corrective actions required to achieve the minimum requirements. A plan of action and milestones must be presented that outlines the goals and targets for meeting the objective. Usually, a follow-up review is required to ascertain progress made toward the achieving the goals.

Evidence: "Institutional Training and Readiness Report (ITRR) sections on training workload indicate that the services are meeting their goals. Personnel Readiness of Military Forces measures help identify key weaknesses. "

YES 14%
Section 3 - Program Management Score 86%
Section 4 - Program Results/Accountability
Number Question Answer Score
4.1

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: "DOD has met or exceeded its long term performance goals for accessions training. Specific goals are set within the context of a Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) that looks out six years to improve planning and budgeting effectiveness of accession training to meet congressionally-mandated endstrength levels while considering emerging needs and threats. Consistent with the annually updated Strategic Planning and Defense Guidance Documents, the DoD Planning, Programming, Budget and Execution Process (PPBE) plans are made, goals are set, and budgets are developed in the FYDP, and Budget figures are revised and submitted annually. The measures reveal that DoD has made significant progress in meeting its very ambitious and challenging long-term goals. Measure 2 - Personnel Readiness of Military Forces proves that DoD has met its unit readiness target for the last several years, despite continued high operational pace of military engagements, and is poised to meet that target in the long-term. Measure 3 - Percentage of planned officer accessions achieved shows how well the service academies, Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC), and other officer training programs are supporting the needs of the Services. The target of 90% refers to the planned output level in number of officers; expected attrition and other losses have already been considered. In 2004 officer accessions produced 98.0% of planned output. Measure 4 - Percentage of planned enlisted personnel completing recruit training is analogous to the preceding measure, in that it indicates how well these activities support Service manpower needs. The target of 90% refers to the planned output level in number of enlisted personnel, so attrition has already been considered in developing the output number. In 2003, recruit training produced 96.4% of the planned number of enlisted personnel, and in 2004 the result was 95.7% even while meeting larger force requirements due the continued Global War on Terrorism. "

Evidence: "Measure 2: DoD's Quarterly Montioring the Status of Forces Report (classified document), show the quarterly and cumulative annual unit readiness ratings. Measures 3 and 4: Institutional Training Readiness Report (ITRR) Tables 1-1, 2-1, 3-1, and 4-1, with explanatory notes. BA#3 budget documents are presented in evidence for Question 2.1."

YES 25%
4.2

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: "In general the program achieves most of its annual performance goals. The following metrics show the progress towards meeting annual goals: Measure 1 - Assessment of Institutional Training Readiness. This measure assesses the readiness of staffing, equipment, and facilities at DOD training institutions to support the education of service members in specialized skills. These ratings are denoted as ""C-ratings,"" which indicate the capability to perform the required institutional training mission. ""C-ratings"" indicate varying states of readiness: C-1 (very ready) or go down to C-4 (not ready) to provide training. The goal is C-2 or better. The average across all Services for FY 2004 was C-1.5. Measure 3 - Success in Recruit Training Program. This measures DoD's success in achieving the planned number of qualified graduates needed to meet Congressionally-mandated military personnel endstrength levels. [This measure is expressed as a training workload readiness (TW) rating. TW-levels are expressed as the percent of planned training actually conducted. They are calculated by dividing for each fiscal year the number of qualified graduates by the number of graduates DoD planned to have and then multiplying that number by one hundred (100).] DoD's target is greater than 80%, which is TW-2 or TW-1. In FY 2004, the average across all Services was TW-1.5. Measure 6 - Cost of accession training per individual enlisted service member. The DoD reviews the basic training cost per enlisted service member for each quarter of each fiscal year as part of its monitoring of the balanced scorecard. The balanced scorecard is one component of the President's Management Agenda. The Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness makes resourcing decisions among the services based on these data with the goal of maintaining reasonable costs for this program. This measure is a weighted average of cost per recruit for all four services. These targets are adjusted annually and within budget years to correlate with changing requirements. DoD's goal is an annual change of less than +/- 7.5% in the cost per recruit. DoD missed this goal in FY 2004 for the same reasons expressed in measures 6. (Due to a one-time increase for buying new facilities for additional recruits to fight the war on terror, the cost per recruit has increased.) Program partners include each Service's recruiting organizations. Generally, (with the notable exception of recent shortfalls in Army recruiting) all services have met recruiting goals. Therefore, the accesssion training program's partner has achieved its performance goals. "

Evidence: "The most recent completed Institutional Training Readiness Report (ITRR), dated January 2005, provides the following ratings. An explanation of the Training Workload (TW) level rating is provided below. ?? Army (Active Component) Recruit Training: TW-1 ?? Army (Active Component) Officer Acquisition: TW-2 ?? Army (Active Component) One Station Unit Training: TW-1 ?? Navy Recruit Training: TW-1 ?? Navy Officer Acquisition: TW-1 ?? Marine Corps Recruit Training: TW-2 ?? Marine Corps Officer Acquisition: TW-1 ?? Air Force Recruit Training: TW-1 ?? Air Force Officer Acquisition: TW-1 Explanation from ITRR [pg. E-12]: TW-levels are expressed as the percent of planned training actually conducted. They are calculated by dividing actual training workload by planned training workload and multiplying by one hundred (100). The following are the standardized TW-level ratings in percentage metrics. TW-1: equal to or greater than 90% TW-2: equal to or greater than 80% and less than 90% TW-3: equal to or greater than 70% and less than 80% TW-4: less than 70% On target ratings: ""If any training category is rated C-3 or below, a narrative description of the problem, its causes, and plans to correct the problem will be provided. Commander's comments are also required when the C-level rating for a category of training is higher or lower than the corresponding TW-level rating."" The de facto target is TW-2 or TW-1. Institutional Training Readiness Report (ITRR) , January 2004, explanation of C-level rating and Tables 1-1, 2-1, 3-1, and 4-1. ITRR page E-13 includes these comments on rating goals: ""If any training category is rated C-3 or below, a narrative description of the problem, its causes, and plans to correct the problem will be provided. Commander's comments are also required when the C-level rating for a category of training is higher or lower than the corresponding TW-level rating."" The de facto target is C-2 or C-1. The following are C-level definitions: C-1 Minor deficiencies with negligible impact C-2 Some deficiencies with limited impact C-3 Significant deficiencies preventing some training mission C-4 Major deficiencies that preclude satisfactory institutional training mission accomplishment Officer accession training activities include the Service Academies, Senior (college-level) Reserve Office Training Corps (ROTC), and Officer Candidate/Training Schools (OCS/OTS). BA#3 budget documents are presented in evidence for Question 2.2."

LARGE EXTENT 17%
4.3

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: "In general, accession training meets production and schedule goals while the Services continue to work toward making improvements in program efficiency and cost effectiveness as shown below. The efforts are on-going and, therefore, the planned results have not been demonstrated. ?? The Army Training and Doctrine Command have initiated assignment-oriented training. The result could save up to $170.6 million (not including offsetting implementation costs) in potential benefits from FY04 through 09 - $81.3 million in reduced training costs, and $89.3 million from reducing annual Soldier training by 2480 workyears. ?? There is only one efficiency gain, unique to one service, and the goal is unclear whether it's a continuing management measure. Navy is experiencing a decreased required Time-To-Train (60 days vs the former 63 days) for boot camp by prioritizing training time and eliminating unnecessary or "overtraining." "The Navy estimates a cost savings of $20 million annually do to these trainings." ?? Navy's Seaman-to-Admiral program (STA-21) is seeking to further decrease training time for sailors with previous college credit."

Evidence: "U.S. Army Audit Agency Advanced Individual Training Courses, Reduced Training Costs. Navy NewsStand Article "Improvements to Training Streamline Navy Boot Camp" (www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=11461) Exhibit OP-5, 3A1J Officer Acquisition, shows a program decrease because of the anticipated decrease in the average STA-21 students."

NO 0%
4.4

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: Not applicable. There are no other agencies that conduct training with purpose and goals similar to military accession training. One potential comparison would be with the US Coast Guard. But while the Coast Guard is an armed Service, it trains primarily for homeland security and law enforcement missions. The training activities in Accession Training are part of preparing military personnel for full combat operations.

Evidence: U.S. Coast Guard website, www.gocoastguard.com/faq.html.

NA 0%
4.5

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: "The Government Accountability Office (GAO) conducts numerous evaluations of the Accessions Training program. At the top level, GAO has published several studies on the program and its elements over the past few years. One of the more recent was titled ""MILITARY EDUCATION: Student and Faculty Perceptions of Student Life at the Military Academies,"" published September 2003. To illustrate the nature of this study, findings of the report include: ?? Over 90 percent of students rated their academic programs as good or excellent. ?? About a quarter to a third of students rated their academy's performance standards for developing military officers as too low. ?? About a quarter to a third of faculty agreed with student perceptions that performance standards for developing military officers were too low. The GAO made no recommendations in this report. Similarly, each service uses its own analytical organizations (e.g., audit organizations, federally funded think tanks) to periodically assess the program. For example, the Center for Naval Analyses (CNA) is an independent organization that studies military matters, and in the past few years has studied Navy and Marine Corps accession training. These studies have shown that accession training activities are willing to analyze and improve their programs to increase performance."

Evidence: "Other GAO studies of accession training include: DEFENSE INFRASTRUCTURE: Central Training Funding Projected to Remain Stable During 1997-2003 (June 1998); MILITARY HOUSING: Costs of Separate Barracks for Male and Female Recruits in Basic Training (March 1999); MILITARY TRAINING: Its Effectiveness for Technical Specialties Is Unknown (October 1990). Center for Naval Analyses (CNA) studies listed below. ?? Attrition of Navy Recruits From Initial Skills Training (July 2001) ?? Marine Corps Recruit Depot (MCRD) Attrition and Comparisons with the Navy (July 1999) ?? Bootcamp Attrition Rates: Predictions for FY 1999 (May 1999)"

YES 25%
Section 4 - Program Results/Accountability Score 67%


Last updated: 09062008.2005SPR