This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-845 
entitled 'Military Training: Actions Needed to Assess Workforce 
Requirements and Appropriate Mix of Army Training Personnel' which was 
released on September 20, 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: 

September 2011: 

Military Training: 

Actions Needed to Assess Workforce Requirements and Appropriate Mix of 
Army Training Personnel: 

GAO-11-845: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-11-845, a report to congressional committees. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

To support ongoing operations, the Army gives priority to providing 
personnel to its operating forces over its support organizations, 
including Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC).TRADOC performs 
various functions, such as developing warfighting doctrine and 
providing training. To help manage its workforce, TRADOC has taken 
certain actions, such as relying more on contractors and reassigning 
other staff to be instructors. In a February 2010 memorandum, the 
TRADOC Commander stated that because of various factors TRADOCís 
ability to successfully perform its core competencies and functions 
was increasingly at risk. House Armed Services Committee report 111-
491 directed GAO to evaluate the availability of Army trainers. GAO 
assessed the extent to which TRADOC has (1) identified the number and 
type of personnel needed to carry out its training mission and (2) 
evaluated the impact of its workforce management actions on the 
quality of training. GAO interviewed key Army and TRADOC officials and 
reviewed relevant doctrine, guidance, curricula, personnel 
requirements data, and training survey results. 

What GAO Found: 

TRADOC annually determines its requirements for key training 
positions, but limitations exist in its underlying approach, such as 
the use of outdated personnel requirements models. From fiscal years 
2005 through 2011, TRADOC's requirements for instructors, training 
developers, and training support personnel have remained relatively 
steady while the student workload has increased by about a third. To 
determine personnel requirements, TRADOC uses various models involving 
formulas that rely on a range of assumptions and inputs. Army guidance 
requires Army commands to update models at least every 3 years, but 
TRADOC has not updated its model for determining the number of 
instructors it needs since 1998. As a result, assumptions and inputs 
used in the model may not reflect changes in how training is currently 
provided, such as the greater use of self-paced computerized learning 
in place of classroom instruction. Such changes could affect the 
number of instructors required to teach a course. In addition, TRADOC 
has used the same number, with minor modifications, for training 
developer requirements for the last 3 fiscal years. TRADOC officials 
recognize that using the same number for training developer 
requirements is not a valid approach and that an updated model is 
needed; however, they are unsure when they will be able to update the 
model. Lastly, TRADOC has not conducted an assessment to determine the 
optimum mix of military, Army civilian, and contractor personnel to 
use to execute its training mission. Without the benefit of models 
that are updated to more closely reflect current training conditions 
and without conducting a mix analysis, TRADOC does not have a sound 
basis for accurately identifying the number and types of personnel 
needed for key training personnel and making the most cost-effective 
use of training resources. 

TRADOC has taken various workforce management actions in order to 
execute its training mission, but its quality assurance program does 
not collect certain information needed to evaluate the impact of these 
actions on the quality of training. Among other things, TRADOC has 
increased the number of students that an instructor teaches, relied on 
more contractors as instructors, and reassigned doctrine and training 
developers to serve as instructors. Through surveys and other tools, 
TRADOC evaluates factors such as studentsí knowledge of course 
materials and whether an instructor is teaching from the curriculum, 
but it does not systematically collect the data needed to evaluate the 
impact of changing the student to instructor ratio or the type of 
instructor on the quality of training. TRADOC officials expressed 
mixed views about the impact of using contractors on the quality of 
training. Some believed that more military trainers are needed because 
these personnel have the knowledge and credibility gained from combat 
experience to teach soldiers. While others stated that contractors 
provide the same quality of training as military personnel. GAO noted 
that TRADOCís use of doctrine and training developers to serve as 
instructors is among the factors that have led to a backlog in 
updating doctrine and curricula, which could affect the quality of 
training. Doctrine should be reviewed at least every 18 months because 
it determines what soldiers are trained on. As of May 2011, there was 
a backlog of 436 man-years in doctrine development. TRADOC officials 
stated that as a best practice, curricula should be updated every 3 
years. However, as of April 2011, TRADOC had a backlog of 204 man-
years for developing, updating, and reviewing curricula and has not 
established a plan to address this backlog. In some cases, 
instructors, with approval from the head of the school, adapt the 
curricula to incorporate more current data. If curricula are not kept 
current, students may not be trained on the most recent information 
and information is not being institutionalized for future instruction. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends that TRADOC establish a plan to (1) update its 
personnel requirements models, doctrine, and curricula; (2) complete a 
personnel mix assessment; and (3) establish metrics to evaluate its 
workforce management actions. DOD concurred with the recommendations. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-845] or key 
components. For more information, contact Sharon Pickup at (202) 512-
9619 or pickups@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

Limitations Exist in TRADOC's Approach to Determining Personnel 
Requirements, and No Personnel Mix Assessment Has Been Completed: 

Quality Assurance Program Does Not Enable TRADOC to Evaluate the 
Impact of Workforce Management Actions on the Quality of Training: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense: 

Related GAO Products: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Map of TRADOC Installations: 

Figure 2: Trends in Personnel and Student Workload Requirements for 
Fiscal Years 2005 through 2011: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

September 20, 2011: 

The Honorable Carl Levin:
Chairman:
The Honorable John McCain:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Armed Services:
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Howard P. McKeon:
Chairman:
The Honorable Adam Smith:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Armed Services:
House of Representatives: 

U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) develops the Army's 
soldiers and civilian leaders to ensure that the Army remains a modern 
and capable fighting force by performing various functions, including 
developing warfighting doctrine and providing training to soldiers. It 
provides training at various locations, using a mix of military 
personnel, Army civilians, and contractors. Since 2001, the Army has 
faced significant demands to provide military personnel to support 
ongoing contingency operations and other missions. Each year, Army 
leadership allocates military personnel among the Army's warfighting 
or "operating" forces and supporting or "generating" forces, the 
largest component of which is TRADOC. To meet operational demands, the 
Army has been giving higher priority to staffing its operating forces 
than its generating forces. Therefore, to help manage its workforce, 
TRADOC has taken various actions, including using contractors as 
instructors, increasing the number of students that an instructor 
teaches, and reassigning personnel who develop doctrine and training 
curricula to serve as instructors. In a February 2010 memorandum, 
[Footnote 1] the Commander of TRADOC stated that TRADOC's ability to 
successfully perform its core competencies and functions was 
increasingly at risk because of manning issues. In particular, the 
memorandum noted that TRADOC had increased its reliance on contractor 
personnel in lieu of military trainers who can offer knowledge and 
credibility gained from combat experience when they teach, coach, and 
mentor soldiers attending TRADOC schools.[Footnote 2] The memorandum 
also noted that shortfalls in the number of training developers, who 
are responsible for developing curricula for TRADOC courses, has led 
to a substantial backlog with regard to developing these curricula. 

The House Armed Services Committee report accompanying a proposed bill 
for the fiscal year 2011 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 
5136) directed GAO to evaluate the availability of Army trainers. 
[Footnote 3] Specifically, we determined the extent to which TRADOC 
has (1) identified the number and type of personnel it needs to carry 
out its training mission and (2) evaluated the impact of its workforce 
management actions on the quality of training. 

To determine the extent to which TRADOC has identified the number and 
type of personnel it needs to carry out its training mission, we 
focused our review on instructor, training developer, and training 
support personnel--personnel types that TRADOC officials identified as 
having key roles in executing the training mission. We reviewed Army 
and TRADOC guidance and analyzed personnel requirements. Additionally, 
we interviewed key officials from the Department of the Army 
Headquarters, TRADOC, and several TRADOC schools. Specifically, we 
selected seven schools to visit that were identified by TRADOC 
headquarter officials and in the TRADOC Commander's 2010 memorandum as 
being representative of TRADOC's challenges in providing training, 
such as having high student workload[Footnote 4] or using a large 
number of contractors. To determine the extent to which TRADOC has 
evaluated the impact of the workforce management actions it has taken 
to execute its training mission on the quality of training provided, 
we evaluated the results of quality assurance instruments, including 
surveys conducted at TRADOC schools, and training and doctrine 
development workload data. We also interviewed key Department of the 
Army Headquarters, TRADOC, and TRADOC school officials. 

We conducted this performance audit from August 2010 to September 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. We discuss our 
scope and methodology in more detail in appendix I. 

Background: 

The Army is made up of both operating and generating forces. Operating 
forces consist of combat units, including divisions, brigades, and 
battalions that conduct operations around the world, including 
contingency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as 
humanitarian assistance and civil support missions. The Army's 
generating force consists of organizations that provide a broad range 
of support for the operating forces, such as training, supply, and 
maintenance. TRADOC is the largest part of the generating force and 
develops the Army's soldiers and civilian leaders to ensure that the 
Army remains a modern and capable fighting force by developing 
warfighting concepts and doctrine and by providing recruiting, 
training, and associated support for military personnel. TRADOC's core 
functions include, among other things, providing initial military 
training, leadership courses, and continued professional education 
courses to soldiers at all levels. 

TRADOC carries out its mission at 32 schools located on 15 different 
installations throughout the continental United States. The schools 
specialize in such training as infantry, intelligence, and aviation 
(see figure 1). 

Figure 1: Map of TRADOC Installations: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated map] 

Location of TRADOC Installations: 

Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania; 
Fort Belvoir, Virginia; 
Fort Benning, Georgia; 
Fort Bliss, Texas; 
Fort Eustis, Virginia; 
Fort Gordon, Georgia; 
Fort Huachuca, Arizona; 
Fort Jackson, South Carolina; 
Fort Knox, Kentucky; 
Fort Leavenworth, Kansas; 
Fort Lee, Virginia; 
Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri; 
Fort Rucker, Alabama; 
Fort Sill, Oklahoma; 
Fort Story, Virginia. 

Source: TRADOC. 

[End of figure] 

TRADOC uses a mix of three types of personnel--military, Department of 
the Army civilian, and contractor--to train soldiers. These personnel 
serve in various key roles, such as: 

* instructors who teach the classes; 

* doctrine developers who develop, review, and update the doctrine, 
including field manuals and training circulars; 

* training developers whose function is to analyze, design, develop, 
and evaluate training and training products; and: 

* training support personnel who perform functions necessary to 
conduct field training exercises. 

To determine its requirements for the aforementioned and other 
personnel, TRADOC uses a variety of methods, including modeling and 
manpower studies. For example, to determine personnel requirements for 
instructors, TRADOC uses a model that takes the projected student 
workload and determines the number of instructors needed to meet that 
workload. The model also relies on other inputs and assumptions, such 
as optimal class size. TRADOC has developed similar models to 
determine personnel requirements for training developers and training 
support personnel. Once TRADOC has determined its requirements based 
on model outputs and other variables, the Army determines authorized 
personnel levels--the maximum number of military and civilian 
personnel TRADOC can assign in order to execute its mission. 
Authorized personnel levels are typically less than requirements 
because of budget constraints. Once the Army has determined authorized 
personnel levels, TRADOC positions can then be assigned to military 
personnel or filled by Department of the Army civilians or contractors. 

During fiscal year 2010, TRADOC was authorized about 41,000 positions. 
TRADOC received about $4.1 billion of the Army's appropriation, of 
which 62 percent or approximately $2.5 billion was dedicated to 
training and training development. TRADOC leadership decided how those 
appropriated funds were to be allocated to each of its schools. 

Limitations Exist in TRADOC's Approach to Determining Personnel 
Requirements and No Personnel Mix Assessment Has Been Completed: 

TRADOC officials expressed concerns about shortfalls in key personnel. 
However, limitations exist in their approach to determine personnel 
requirements. In addition, TRADOC has not conducted a personnel mix 
assessment to determine the optimum mix of military, Army civilian, 
and contractor personnel. 

TRADOC Personnel Requirements Remain Relatively Steady and Student 
Workload Is Increasing: 

TRADOC's stated personnel requirements for instructors, training 
developers, and training support personnel have remained relatively 
steady from fiscal years 2005 through 2011, as shown in figure 2. The 
figure also shows that over the same time period, TRADOC's student 
workload has increased by about 185,000, or about one-third (399,371 
to 584,299), as a result of factors such as increases in the Army's 
end strength to support ongoing operations, which have led to a larger 
number of soldiers who need TRADOC training. 

Figure 2: Trends in Personnel and Student Workload Requirements for 
Fiscal Years 2005 through 2011: 

[Refer to PDF for image: combined vertical bar and line graph] 

Personnel requirement by category: 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
Instructor personnel: 10,352; 
Training developer personnel: 4,254; 
Training support personnel: 5,896; 
Student workload: 399,371. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
Instructor personnel: 10,507; 
Training developer personnel: 4,081; 
Training support personnel: 6,052; 
Student workload: 412,086. 

Fiscal year: 2007; 
Instructor personnel: 11,743; 
Training developer personnel: 3,428; 
Training support personnel: 6,091; 
Student workload: 421,517. 

Fiscal year: 2008; 
Instructor personnel: 11,333; 
Training developer personnel: 4,000; 
Training support personnel: 5,559; 
Student workload: 431,430. 

Fiscal year: 2009; 
Instructor personnel: 12,074; 
Training developer personnel: 3,874; 
Training support personnel: 5,757; 
Student workload: 533,455. 

Fiscal year: 2010; 
Instructor personnel: 13,044; 
Training developer personnel: 3,825; 
Training support personnel: 5,628; 
Student workload: 596,162. 

Fiscal year: 2011; 
Instructor personnel: 12,905; 
Training developer personnel: 3,816; 
Training support personnel: 5,509; 
Student workload: 584,299. 

Source: TRADOC. 

[End of figure] 

TRADOC's Models for Identifying Required Numbers of Instructors, 
Training Developers, and Training Support Personnel Have Some 
Limitations: 

In his 2010 memorandum, the TRADOC Commander raised concerns that 
manning shortfalls were putting TRADOC's ability to successfully 
perform its core competencies and functions at risk. Similarly, at the 
time of our review, TRADOC headquarters and school officials stated 
that considering increases in student workload, TRADOC continued to 
face shortages in instructors, training developers, and training 
support personnel. However, we found limitations in the models that 
TRADOC uses for identifying personnel requirements for these key 
personnel. 

Instructors: 

In determining instructor personnel requirements, TRADOC uses an 
instructor model based on a formula that relies on assumptions and 
inputs. According to the Army's regulation on manpower 
management,[Footnote 5] Army commands are required to review the 
models they use to determine manpower requirements at least every 3 
years, or more often as needed. Further, the regulation requires the 
U.S. Army Manpower Analysis Agency to review and recommend approval of 
these models to the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and 
Reserve Affairs, who is responsible for approving the models. However, 
we found that the instructor personnel requirements model has not been 
updated since 1998, and the assumptions and inputs used in the model 
may not reflect changes in how training is currently provided. For 
example: 

* The model assumes that a course can and will be conducted in the 
same way every time it is taught. However, we found that the way in 
which TRADOC delivers a course can vary. For example, instead of 
students traveling to attend training in the classroom, schools may 
use distance learning, which allows soldiers to complete computer-
based training courses or selected modules of a course at their 
permanent duty locations. Some of these courses are self-paced and not 
instructor led; other courses are instructor led and utilize 
technology to reach more students. Because the model assumes that all 
courses are taught the same way, it does not take into consideration 
that in some cases, using distance learning may reduce the need for 
instructors while in other cases additional instructors may be needed 
to lead distance learning courses. 

* The model also assumes that TRADOC schools can use the same 
instructor to teach different courses. Specifically, there is an 
assumption that once an individual is certified as an instructor, that 
individual can teach any course by following the contents in the 
course curriculum. While this may be true for some general courses, 
more specialized courses require a background or familiarity with the 
subject matter in order to teach it. Because the model assumes that 
any instructor can teach any course, it may not accurately reflect the 
total number of instructors needed to teach all courses. 

* The model uses inputs that include a number of variables, such as 
workload requirements and data from course curricula. For example, the 
model uses indirect contact hours--the time allotted for instructor 
duties not related to formal class time, such as reviewing lesson 
plans and providing private counseling to students. However, according 
to a TRADOC official, using indirect contact hours in the model could 
cause inefficiencies in determining personnel requirements because the 
indirect contact hours have not been reviewed and updated in 10 years. 
Another input that goes into the model is the manpower availability 
factor--the amount of time personnel is available to perform their 
primary duties. According to Army Regulation 570-4 for manpower 
management, during normal operations in the United States, military 
and civilian personnel should generally be available to perform their 
assigned tasks for 145 hours per month, or approximately 18 days. 
However, according to some TRADOC school officials, expecting these 
personnel to actually be available for that many hours may be 
unrealistic. Specifically, they stated that instructors were not 
available for the mandated amount of time because they had to perform 
other activities, such as attending training or taking sick and annual 
leave. Since the model does not fully account for these activities, it 
may not accurately identify the total number of instructors needed to 
execute the training mission. 

Training Developers: 

In determining training developer personnel requirements, TRADOC had 
used a model but discontinued its use. The training developer model 
had not been updated since 1996, and TRADOC stopped using it in 2006 
because the requirements it calculated were higher than those needed 
to complete the workload. Instead, in an effort to better align its 
requirements to its workload, TRADOC decided to use estimates of the 
time required to develop training products as the basis to determine 
the needed numbers of training developers. However, in 2009, the Army 
Manpower and Force Analysis Directorate stated that using this 
methodology was not a valid means of determining personnel 
requirements and TRADOC stopped using it. As a result, since 2009, 
TRADOC has used the same estimated number, with minor modifications, 
for training developer requirements from one fiscal year to the next. 
TRADOC officials recognize that this is not a valid approach and that 
they need to use an updated model to determine training developer 
requirements. According to a TRADOC official, TRADOC tentatively plans 
to begin a review to develop a new model in the second half of fiscal 
year 2012. The official did not believe TRADOC would be able to meet 
this deadline, however, because of competing priorities to develop 
other models. 

Training Support Personnel: 

In determining the number of training support personnel requirements, 
TRADOC uses a model that was updated and approved in 2010. The model 
originally defined training support personnel as individuals who 
performed classroom and field training activities. As part of the 
update, training support personnel were redefined to include only 
individuals who conducted some field training activities. As a result, 
requirements related to some activities covered under the original 
definition are not identified under the current process. For instance, 
prior to the update, the training support personnel model included 
requirements for individuals responsible for activities such as 
resetting computers in the classrooms or delivering ammunition to 
shooting ranges. These activities are no longer conducted by 
individuals who are considered training support personnel but are 
still needed to conduct the training mission. TRADOC has not developed 
personnel requirements models for these activities or factored in how 
these activities may be integrated into existing personnel 
requirements models. For example, TRADOC officials stated that they 
intend to develop a personnel requirements model for ammunition 
delivery, but as of July 2011, the model had not been developed. 
Similarly, tasks such as setting up computers may be assigned to 
instructors, but the instructor model has not been updated to reflect 
these workload requirements. 

Several of these limitations were also identified in an August 2010 
Army Audit Agency review of TRADOC's personnel requirements 
determination process for institutional training.[Footnote 6] While 
TRADOC acknowledged these limitations and stated that it would work to 
address them, we found that as of July 2011, these limitations 
remained. According to TRADOC officials, these models have not been 
developed or updated because of a lack of manpower and competing 
demands on personnel time. Currently, the office responsible for 
developing personnel requirements models stated that priority has been 
placed on developing models that do not currently exist rather than 
updating existing models. TRADOC is in the process of revising its 
overall approach to training, moving from traditional classroom 
training to a more technology-driven approach intended to enable 
soldiers to learn using a variety of techniques, including 
simulations, gaming technology, or other technology-delivered 
instruction.[Footnote 7] Officials stated that the impact on personnel 
requirements from this new approach to learning is unknown, but 
believe that it may reduce personnel requirements, particularly for 
instructors, because of an increased reliance on technology rather 
than classroom instruction. Officials acknowledge that these changes 
will need to be incorporated into personnel requirements models. 
However, we found that as of July 2011, TRADOC had not established a 
timeline for updating these models. Without updated models, TRADOC 
cannot ensure that it is accurately identifying the numbers of 
instructors, training developers, and training support personnel 
needed to carry out its training mission. 

TRADOC Has Not Conducted a Personnel Mix Assessment: 

According to Army Regulation 570-4, determining manpower requirements 
includes a determination of optimum manpower mix. This step is 
typically completed after requirements and authorized personnel levels 
have been determined. TRADOC relies on a mix of military personnel, 
Army civilians, and contractors to accomplish its training mission. 
School officials we interviewed stated that their preference would be 
to solely use military personnel to provide training because military 
personnel have the knowledge and credibility gained from combat 
experience to teach and mentor soldiers; however, they recognize that 
this is impossible because of constraints on the availability of 
military personnel. Given those constraints, these officials agree 
that it is important to use an appropriate mix of personnel in order 
to maximize the benefit that each type of personnel adds to training. 
For example, officials say that civilians bring continuity to in-house 
training since they do not deploy and contractor personnel bring 
flexibility that allows TRADOC officials to adjust personnel to meet 
fluctuations in student workload. 

According to TRADOC leadership, TRADOC schools rely heavily on 
contractors to execute training. TRADOC officials estimated that some 
courses are taught by an instructor mix that is 30 percent military 
and 70 percent civilians, including contractors. In addition, 
officials at several schools noted that without contractors they would 
not be able to meet the student workload. While several officials 
stated that the mix of personnel they are currently using is 
inappropriate, most places we visited--including TRADOC headquarters--
could not provide us with data about the number of contractors they 
were using to accomplish TRADOC's training mission. As a result, they 
were unable to identify what their true reliance on contractors is or 
whether the number of contractors being used is too high. We found 
that officials at only one school that we visited had documented the 
number of contractor personnel. In fiscal year 2010, using TRADOC 
data, we determined that contractors made up 46 percent of instructor 
personnel and 64 percent of training developer personnel at that 
school. 

In March 2010, the Department of the Army issued a memorandum 
directing generating force commands, including TRADOC, to develop a 
Generating Force Manpower Mix Assessment no later than June 1, 2010. 
[Footnote 8] According to the memorandum, the results of the manpower 
mix assessment are key to shaping strategic force structure decisions 
and should enable commands, including TRADOC, to do the right things 
in the most efficient manner to support Army requirements and 
standards. The memorandum identified several factors that should be 
considered in conducting the assessment, including reviewing tasks 
that are no longer necessary or are not being performed because of 
current manpower mix or levels. Further, the memorandum requires 
commands to project the mix of military, civilian, and contractor 
personnel in the most effective and cost efficient means as part of 
the assessment. According to TRADOC headquarters officials, each 
school should do its own mix assessment. However, TRADOC school 
officials stated that the schools have not done such assessments 
because of constant changes in funding, student workload, and 
availability of military personnel. TRADOC leadership recognizes that 
a personnel mix assessment is important and should be completed to 
ensure that the right mix of military, civilian, and contractor 
personnel are used as instructors in TRADOC courses. However, as of 
July 2011, TRADOC had no specific plan with milestones for its schools 
to conduct these personnel mix assessments. 

Quality Assurance Program Does Not Enable TRADOC to Evaluate the 
Impact of Workforce Management Actions on the Quality of Training: 

TRADOC has taken various workforce management actions in order to 
execute its training mission, but its quality assurance program does 
not capture the level of detail needed to evaluate the impact of these 
steps on the quality of training provided to soldiers. Workforce 
management actions include increasing student to instructor ratios, 
using contractors to augment military and Army civilian instructors, 
and reassigning doctrine and training developers to serve as 
instructors. 

TRADOC Has Developed a Quality Assurance Program to Evaluate Training: 

TRADOC has established a quality assurance program to collect 
information that it uses to measure the effectiveness and quality of 
its training. TRADOC's regulation setting out the description and 
requirements for the evaluation and quality assurance program assigns 
responsibilities to TRADOC regarding evaluations of its own courses 
and training materials.[Footnote 9] In addition, the TRADOC pamphlet 
that provides implementing guidance, formats, and techniques for 
TRADOC's evaluation and quality assurance programs[Footnote 10] 
details different types of information that should be considered as 
part of the evaluation, such as whether training objectives are met 
(e.g., whether students are able to perform core tasks) and whether 
instructors perform to standards. The Command's quality assurance 
program consists of the following types of evaluations: 

* Accreditation. Accreditation is the formal recognition the TRADOC 
Commander gives to TRADOC schools, granting them authority to conduct 
or continue to conduct training. It certifies that a school's training 
program, processes, personnel, administration, operations, and 
infrastructure are adequate to support training to course standards 
and that the school is adhering to TRADOC training guidance and 
directives. TRADOC guidance calls for schools to be evaluated by 
TRADOC every 3 years, using the Army Enterprise Accreditation 
Standards.[Footnote 11] Quality assurance officials at the schools 
conduct self-assessments to prepare for the accreditation process 
conducted by headquarters officials, and they also conduct 
accreditations of their own educational programs. 

* Internal evaluation. This evaluation process includes classroom 
observations and internal surveys. During classroom observations, 
evaluators observe classes to ensure that training is being delivered 
in the right sequence, among other things. Evaluators use instructor 
performance checklists to capture information, such as how well the 
instructor introduces the course and presents course materials. An 
internal survey is conducted at the beginning of each course to 
determine the students' knowledge of course content prior to starting 
the course and again at the end of the course to determine if the 
objectives of the course have been met. Questions on this survey focus 
on critical tasks for the job specialty that the course covers. 
Students also have an opportunity to write in comments on the survey. 

* External evaluation. This process uses an external survey to 
determine if soldiers who attended a course can meet job performance 
requirements as a result of the training they received or if 
additional training is needed. The survey is sent to the soldier or 
the soldier's supervisor, usually no sooner than 6 months after the 
soldier completes the training course. External evaluations determine 
if the training the soldiers receive prepares them to meet the needs 
of the operational Army. 

TRADOC Has Taken Various Workforce Management Actions That Could 
Affect the Quality of Training: 

TRADOC has taken a number of workforce management actions in order to 
execute its training mission. As discussed below, these actions 
include increasing student to instructor ratios, using contractors to 
augment military and Army civilian instructors, and using doctrine and 
training developers as instructors. We found that there were mixed 
views about the impact of these actions on the quality of training 
from students and TRADOC officials at various levels. On the one hand, 
in a 2010 memorandum, TRADOC leadership raised concerns that the steps 
it had taken may be affecting TRADOC's ability to carry out its core 
competencies, which include providing quality training. On the other 
hand, survey results from students indicated that they believed they 
received quality training. Further, officials at TRADOC headquarters 
and schools, including quality assurance personnel, as well as some 
students stated that they believe that quality training is typically 
being provided. TRADOC has not established any metrics to measure the 
impact of its workforce management actions on training quality and 
without such metrics is unable to definitively determine what impact, 
if any, has occurred. 

Changing the Student to Instructor Ratio: 

At times, TRADOC has accommodated increases in student workload by 
changing the student to instructor ratio for certain courses, 
increasing the number of students in the classroom without adding 
instructors. Officials throughout TRADOC expressed concerns that 
increasing student to instructor ratios from what is prescribed in 
course curricula would affect the quality of training because larger 
class sizes reduce the amount of one-on-one time that instructors can 
spend with students. For example, at the infantry school at Fort 
Benning, school officials stated that one of the mortar courses was 
designed to be taught with a student to instructor ratio of 8:1 but 
instead was taught with a ratio of 23:1 in order to meet the student 
workload. According to officials at the school, instructors had less 
time to spend with students, and therefore students were only able to 
become familiar with mortars but not get fully trained on them. 
Similarly, officials at the aviation school at Fort Rucker stated that 
their student to instructor ratio for one class sometimes has to be 
increased from 2:1 to 3:1. According to officials, the safety risk for 
this class was increased and the quality of the training was affected 
because the instructor's attention had to be divided among three 
students rather than two. The Army Audit Agency in its 2010 study 
identified these issues and others associated with the student to 
instructor ratios. For example, the study found that when student to 
instructor ratios increased, officer instruction became more task- 
centric, with less emphasis on leadership training. Quality assurance 
personnel evaluate compliance with student to instructor ratios by 
comparing the ratio used in the training environment to that outlined 
in the curricula. However, the quality assurance program captures only 
whether instructors are teaching the course with the student to 
instructor ratios identified in the curriculum; it does not further 
investigate the impact on training quality of the increased ratio. As 
a result, no data are captured that can be used to evaluate the impact 
of having more students assigned to one instructor. In its report, the 
Army Audit Agency recommended that TRADOC identify metrics that could 
capture data on the effects of not complying with recommended student 
to instructor ratios. TRADOC responded that it would require quality 
assurance personnel at the schools to report any quality of training 
issues they found when evaluating their courses--including data on 
student to instructor ratios--beginning in the first quarter of fiscal 
year 2011. However, we found that as of July 2011, TRADOC schools had 
not yet been required to report this information. As a result, 
leadership lacks pertinent information that could help them assess the 
impact of increasing student to instructor ratios. 

Using Contractors: 

As discussed earlier, TRADOC uses contractors to augment military and 
Army civilian training personnel. A mix of views has been expressed 
regarding the quality of training provided by contractor personnel. 
For example, in 2010, the Commanding General of TRADOC issued a 
memorandum stating that using contractors has led to a "degreening" of 
the force, meaning that not enough military personnel are involved in 
training soldiers. TRADOC officials believe that having military 
personnel in the classroom is extremely important because military 
personnel have the knowledge and credibility gained from combat 
experience to teach, coach, and mentor the soldiers they train. 
Alternatively, other TRADOC officials have noted the value that 
contractors bring by providing schools the flexibility to augment the 
number of instructors they have available in order to accommodate 
surges in student workload and fluctuations in the number of classes 
offered. Still other officials believe there is no significant 
difference in the quality of training provided by military, civilian, 
and contractor personnel. They noted that some of the contractor 
personnel used to provide training have prior military experience. For 
example, at Fort Huachuca, quality assurance officials stated that 
most of the contractor personnel used are former military personnel 
who had deployed at least one time. 

TRADOC's quality assurance program does not systematically collect the 
data needed to evaluate the impact of the type of instructor on the 
quality of training. While TRADOC's quality assurance program captures 
information such as how well the instructor follows lesson plans, 
demonstrates techniques, and responds to students' needs, it does not 
systematically identify whether the instructor was military, civilian, 
or contractor. Further, internal surveys used to gather student 
feedback on courses do not include any specific questions requiring 
students to identify the type of instructor for the class. Students 
are able to provide their comments in the survey, which may include a 
discussion of the instructor, but there is no requirement for them to 
do so. As a result, TRADOC has no systematic method of compiling this 
data to determine the impact of instructor type on the quality of 
instruction. 

Using Doctrine and Training Developers as Instructors: 

Another workforce management action TRADOC has taken is to use 
doctrine and training developers to serve as instructors. TRADOC's 
quality assurance program evaluates whether instructors are teaching 
in accordance with what is in the curricula. However, when doctrine 
and training developers are being used as instructors, developers are 
not available to perform their primary task of developing, reviewing, 
and updating Army doctrine and curricula for TRADOC courses, which 
could affect the quality of training. Doctrine and curricula serve as 
the core for training at TRADOC schools, and developing, updating, and 
reviewing doctrine and curricula are critical to ensuring that TRADOC 
provides quality training. Doctrine, in the form of field manuals and 
other publications, establishes the foundation for how to think about 
operations and what to train soldiers on so that they can conduct 
operations. From doctrine, curricula are developed that provide a 
general description of course content, among other things. Army 
doctrine and curricula must complement one another so that soldiers 
are trained in accordance with guidance. 

Based on TRADOC guidance, doctrine should be reviewed at least every 
18 months. According to a 2010 memorandum to the Department of the 
Army Headquarters, TRADOC was behind in integrating lessons learned, 
developing training, and updating doctrine. As a result, there is a 
substantial doctrine and training development backlog. During the time 
of our audit, TRADOC doctrine developers were working on 223 doctrinal 
and supporting publications. As of May 2011, TRADOC had a backlog of 
436 man-years[Footnote 12] for doctrine development. Our analysis of 
TRADOC data shows that only 37 percent of the 447 doctrinal 
publications in TRADOC's inventory at that time were current. The 
remaining doctrinal publications either needed to be developed, 
reviewed, or updated. Since doctrine guides what training is needed to 
enable soldiers to conduct operations, if it is not current, the 
quality of training provided to soldiers may be affected. 

TRADOC officials stated that as a best practice, curricula should be 
updated every 3 years. School officials stated that they try to update 
one-third of their curricula each year, but a number of factors, 
including using training developers to serve as instructors, have led 
to a backlog in updating curricula. As of April 2011, TRADOC had a 
backlog of 204 man-years for developing, updating, and reviewing 232 
curricula that are considered critical to train soldiers on the 
necessary skills needed to perform their duties. In October 2010, 
TRADOC headquarters issued a tasking order to TRADOC schools requiring 
them to review and update the curricula for initial military training 
courses and to make necessary changes based on relevant and improved 
doctrine. No similar priority has been given for TRADOC's schools to 
update other curricula. If curricula are not kept current, students 
could potentially not be trained on the most recent information, and 
this information is not being institutionalized for future 
instruction. For example, according to school officials, having 
updated curricula is important because instructors are required to 
teach the information contained in those curricula. According to 
TRADOC officials, most schools are allowing instructors, with approval 
from the head of the school, to deviate from the curricula so that 
they can incorporate current lessons learned and best practices from 
the field into class instruction. While this enables individual 
instructors to overcome outdated material in the curricula, there is 
no way to ensure that different instructors for the same course will 
choose to incorporate the same information in their instruction. As a 
result, TRADOC is unable to guarantee that all students in the same 
course receive the same quality of training they need to successfully 
perform their tasks. 

Conclusions: 

To remain a modern and capable fighting force, the Army needs a 
training system that can respond to changing national security needs 
while balancing competing demands for personnel. At the same time, the 
Department of Defense is facing internal fiscal pressures and 
emphasizing the need to find greater efficiencies across the 
Department and opportunities for cost savings. In this environment, it 
is important that TRADOC strengthen its approach for determining the 
appropriate number and mix of personnel to serve as instructors, 
training developers, and training support personnel to execute its 
training mission. Currently, certain key personnel requirements models 
used by TRADOC are out of date, and the command has not conducted an 
assessment to determine the right mix of personnel--military, 
civilian, and contractor--it needs to provide training. As a result of 
these limitations, TRADOC officials lack a sound basis for quantifying 
concerns they have raised about manning shortfalls among key 
personnel. Similarly, limitations in TRADOC's quality assurance 
program make it difficult for TRADOC to evaluate the impact of the 
workforce management actions it has taken to meet increased student 
workload. At the same time, the decision to use doctrine and training 
development personnel as instructors has contributed to the backlog of 
doctrine and curricula that need to be updated. As a result, soldiers 
are not always receiving instruction on the most current and relevant 
information. Strengthening its approach to determining personnel 
requirements, setting priorities for updating doctrine and curricula, 
and assessing the impact of its workforce measures will enable TRADOC 
to make necessary adjustments and potentially achieve greater 
efficiencies, save costs, and maximize the use of training resources. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

To ensure that TRADOC is requesting the appropriate number and mix of 
personnel to serve as instructors, training developers, and training 
support personnel, we recommend that the Secretary of the Army direct 
TRADOC to take the following three actions: 

* Develop a plan with specific implementation milestones to update its 
personnel requirements models for training personnel, including (1) 
updating models for instructors and training developers and (2) 
developing models for field training and classroom setup personnel not 
covered in the training support personnel model, and adjust 
requirements accordingly. 

* Perform an assessment to determine the right mix of military, 
civilian, and contractor personnel needed to accomplish the training 
mission and make necessary adjustments to the current mix. 

* Establish metrics within its quality assurance program to enable 
TRADOC to evaluate how its workforce management actions, such as 
increasing reliance on contractors, affect the quality of training and 
use the data collected from these metrics to make adjustments to 
training as needed. 

To ensure that soldiers are being trained on the most current and 
recent information, we recommend that the Secretary of the Army direct 
TRADOC to establish a plan to enable TRADOC to develop, review, and 
update doctrine and curricula by (1) setting additional priority areas 
beyond initial military training on which doctrine and training 
developers should focus and (2) identifying timelines by which these 
reviews should be completed. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD concurred with our 
four recommendations. The full text of DOD's written comments is 
reprinted in appendix II. 

DOD concurred with our recommendation that the Secretary of the Army 
direct TRADOC to develop a plan with specific implementation 
milestones to update its personnel requirements models for training 
personnel and adjust requirements accordingly. In its comments, DOD 
stated that TRADOC is currently undertaking an in-depth review of 
instructor and training developer functions that will establish new 
staffing criteria for these personnel. This study, termed the Army 
Learning Concept 2015, is expected to be completed in the summer of 
2012. According to DOD, the study will also determine manning 
requirements for field training. DOD added that development of a model 
for ammunition delivery/recovery mentioned in the report has been 
completed, and documentation for this new model is now being prepared 
for commandwide staffing to assist Army headquarters in revising 
manning models. In a follow-up discussion, DOD and TRADOC officials 
stated that they are currently updating their instructor and training 
developer models and they intend to incorporate the results of the 
Army Learning Concept 2015 review in subsequent updates of those 
models. The officials added that classroom setup and other training 
support tasks are a normal function of instructors and that these 
tasks will therefore be addressed in the instructor model. 

DOD concurred with our recommendation that the Secretary of the Army 
direct TRADOC to perform an assessment to determine the right mix of 
military, civilian, and contractor personnel needed to accomplish the 
training mission and make necessary adjustments to the current mix. 
DOD stated that because of the different standards and requirements 
for divergent courses, there is no single standard for a mix of cadre 
across TRADOC. DOD agreed that some type of study is needed and that 
TRADOC will conduct this analysis and include the results in its 
curricula. DOD further stated that TRADOC will also examine the 
potential to include an analysis of the optimum mix of instructors 
within the curricula for individual courses. According to DOD, this 
data would allow TRADOC to better articulate its true needs and to 
understand the potential to rebalance the existing instructors across 
courses in support of the new training load. 

DOD concurred with our recommendation that the Secretary of the Army 
direct TRADOC to establish metrics within its quality assurance 
program to enable TRADOC to evaluate how its workforce management 
actions--such as increasing reliance on contractors--impact the 
quality of training and use the data collected from these metrics to 
make adjustments to training as needed. In its comments, DOD stated 
that TRADOC will implement initiatives to develop metrics and collect 
data that will enable it to evaluate its workforce management actions 
while assisting TRADOC and Army headquarters in assessing training 
effectiveness. DOD added that establishing these metrics is contingent 
upon availability of resources and funding, noting that TRADOC's 
quality assurance program must maintain the personnel required to 
collect this data as well as acquire statisticians to analyze the data 
for management decisions. If resourced to conduct this analysis, 
TRADOC anticipates developing the metrics by August 2012. We recognize 
that resources are needed to develop metrics to capture the impact of 
workforce management actions on the quality of training. However, in 
the absence of allocating resources to develop such metrics, TRADOC 
will continue to lack a sound basis for evaluating the impact of 
workforce management actions on the quality of training. As a result, 
TRADOC risks missing opportunities to make any necessary adjustments 
that could potentially enhance its ability to maximize the use of 
training resources. 

Finally, DOD concurred with our recommendation that the Secretary of 
the Army direct TRADOC to establish a plan to enable TRADOC to 
develop, review, and update doctrine and curricula by setting 
additional priority areas on which doctrine and training developers 
should focus and identifying timelines by which these reviews should 
be completed. DOD stated that priorities for updating TRADOC's 
doctrine and curricula are established to meet operational 
requirements that change based on the needs of the force. DOD added 
that update requirements have accelerated for the past decade and that 
TRADOC has been working to reduce the backlog. According to DOD, 
TRADOC has taken certain steps including refining guidance and 
establishing a plan and time frames for updating doctrine. For 
example, DOD noted that the TRADOC Commanding General has refined his 
doctrine development guidance in his Doctrine 2015 strategy, which 
called for the doctrine development process to be faster and 
accessible to the force. DOD also stated that a transition plan for 
Doctrine 2015 and a plan for managing the execution of Doctrine 2015 
are being developed. We view these actions as positive steps with 
respect to updating doctrine. As a result, we continue to believe that 
such a plan is needed to address the backlog in curricula development 
to ensure that curricula are kept current. Without such a plan, TRADOC 
risks soldiers not receiving instruction on the most current and 
relevant information. 

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Defense, the 
Secretary of the Army, and the Commander of U.S. Army Training and 
Doctrine Command. In addition, this report also is available at no 
charge on the GAO website 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 
James A. Reynolds (Assistant Director), Chaneť Gaskin, Brian Mateja, 
and Sonja Ware. 

Signed by: 

Sharon L. Pickup: 
Director: 
Defense Capabilities and Management: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

As mandated by the House Armed Services Committee report accompanying 
a proposed bill for the fiscal year 2011 National Defense 
Authorization Act (H.R. 5136), we examined the extent to which U.S. 
Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) has (1) identified the 
number and type of personnel it needs for instructors, training 
developers, and training support personnel to carry out its training 
mission and (2) evaluated the impact of its workforce management 
actions on the quality of training. 

To determine the extent to which TRADOC has identified the number and 
type of personnel it needs to carry out its training mission, we 
focused our review on instructor, training developer, and training 
support personnel--personnel types that TRADOC officials identified as 
having key roles in executing the training mission. We met with 
Department of the Army Headquarters officials; TRADOC personnel; and 
operations, budget, and training officials at TRADOC headquarters and 
schools. We discussed the process for determining student workload and 
personnel requirements, establishing authorized personnel levels, and 
allocating personnel among Army commands resulting from the Total Army 
Analysis process. In addition, we held discussions and obtained 
documentation from the Army Manpower Analysis agency on the 
mathematical models and studies planned or completed by TRADOC to 
develop manpower estimating criteria. We also discussed the types of 
personnel (military, Army civilian, or contractor) who provided 
training to soldiers and the challenges associated with obtaining and 
using those types of personnel. We obtained and analyzed pertinent 
personnel and workload documentation to perform a trend analysis on 
personnel requirements, authorized personnel levels, and student 
workload from fiscal year 2005 through fiscal year 2011. Our analysis 
of personnel data compared the differences in required and authorized 
personnel for fiscal years 2005 through 2011. We focused our analysis 
on that time frame because we were able to obtain more complete 
information from these years. In addition, we reviewed curricula used 
to provide training to soldiers to determine the type of information 
included in the curricula and whether this information was current. We 
also examined relevant Department of Defense (DOD), Army, and TRADOC 
guidance, including DOD's policy and procedures for determining 
workforce mix, the Army's manpower management guidance, and TRADOC's 
Systems Approach to Training. Finally, we reviewed previous reports 
issued by GAO and the U.S. Army Audit Agency on personnel requirements. 

To determine the extent to which TRADOC has evaluated the impact of 
workforce management actions it has taken to execute its training 
mission on the quality of training provided, we met with TRADOC 
personnel and operations and training officials, including quality 
assurance, doctrine, and training development officials, at TRADOC 
schools and headquarters. At the TRADOC schools we visited, we 
discussed the quality assurance instruments used to measure the 
quality of training provided, time frames for conducting the 
evaluations, and information gained from them. In addition, we 
collected examples of surveys, survey results, and accreditation 
summary reports. At TRADOC headquarters, we discussed and obtained 
documentation related to the Command's ability to measure mission 
effectiveness. We discussed the Command's accreditation process and 
TRADOC Headquarters' involvement in its schools' quality review 
processes. At both TRADOC Headquarters and TRADOC schools, we 
discussed challenges associated with developing, reviewing, and 
updating the doctrine and curricula used to provide training. 
Additionally, we obtained data on TRADOC's doctrine and training 
development workload. We reviewed and analyzed the data to determine 
what percentage of the data was current and what percentage needed to 
be developed, reviewed, or updated. We obtained data to show a trend 
in doctrine and training development backlogs from fiscal years 2007 
through 2010. We focused our analysis on that time frame because we 
were able to obtain more complete information from these years. 
Finally, we obtained and reviewed relevant TRADOC guidance on 
conducting quality review assessments and developing, reviewing, and 
updating doctrine and curricula. 

We visited seven schools that were identified by TRADOC Headquarters 
officials and in the TRADOC Commander's 2010 memorandum as being 
representative of TRADOC's challenges in providing training, such as 
having high student workload or using a large number of contractors. 
We conducted work at the following schools: 

* United States Army Aviation Logistics School, Fort Eustis, Virginia; 

* Maritime Transportation School, Fort Eustis, Virginia; 

* Aviation Center of Excellence, Fort Rucker, Alabama; 

* Infantry School, Fort Benning, Georgia; 

* Military Police School, Fort Leonardwood, Missouri; 

* Intelligence Center of Excellence, Fort Huachuca, Arizona; and: 

* Signals Center of Excellence, Fort Gordon, Georgia. 

We also conducted work at the following locations: 

* Department of the Army Headquarters, Pentagon, Arlington, Virginia; 

* TRADOC Headquarters, Fort Monroe, Virginia; 

* Combined Arms Command, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas; 

* Army Manpower Analysis Agency, Fort Belvior, Virginia; and: 

* Army Human Resources Command, Fort Knox, Kentucky. 

We conducted this performance audit from August 2010 to September 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. 20501-4000: 

September 9, 2011: 

Ms. Sharon L. Pickup: 
Director, Defense Capabilities and Management: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Ms. Pickup, 

This is the Department of Defense (DOD) response to the GAO Draft 
Report, GAO-11-845, 'Military Training: Actions Needed To Assess 
Workforce Requirements and Appropriate Mix of Training Personnel' 
dated August 9, 2011 (GAO Code 351516). Thank you for the opportunity 
to comment. The Department concurs with the four GAO recommendations 
presented in the draft report. Details are provided in the enclosure 
to this letter. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Laura J. Junor: 
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense: 
Readiness: 

[End of letter] 

Enclosure: 

GAO Draft Report Dated August 9, 2011: 
GAO-H-845 (GAO Code 351516): 

"Military Training: Actions Needed To Assess Workforce Requirements 
And Appropriate Mix Of Training Personnel" 

Department Of Defense Comments To The Gao Recommendations: 

Recommendation 1: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of the Army 
direct Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) to develop a plan with 
specific implementation milestones to update its personnel 
requirements models for training personnel, including 1) updating 
models for instructors and training developers and 2) developing 
models for field training and classroom setup personnel not covered in 
the training support personnel model, and adjust requirements 
accordingly. 

DoD Response: Concur. TRADOC is currently undertaking an in-depth 
review of instructor and training developer functions that will 
establish new staffing criteria. The Army Learning Concept
(ALC) 2015 introduces significant changes to traditional Army training 
strategies, technologies, and delivery methods. TRADOC and the ALC 
2015 proponents are working to redefine instructor and training 
developer roles in preparation for onsite workload measurement. The 
ALC 2015/instructor review is targeted to be completed in the summer 
of 2012. 

This study will determine manning requirements for field training; 
development of the other field training model referenced in the GAO 
report (Ammunition Delivery/Recovery) has been completed since the 
last correspondence with GAO in June 2011. Documentation for this new 
model is now being prepared for command-wide staffing to assist HQDA 
in revising manning models. This instructor function will be included 
in the ALC 2015/instructor review described above, and no separate 
model/study is necessary. 

Recommendation 2: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of the Army 
direct Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) to perform an assessment 
to determine the right mix of military, civilian, and contractor 
personnel needed to accomplish the training mission and make necessary 
adjustments to the current mix. 

DoD RESPONSE: Concur. Due to the different standards and requirements 
for divergent courses, there is no single standard for a mix of cadre 
across TRADOC. The Department agrees that some type of study is 
needed; TRADOC will conduct this analysis and include the results in 
their programs of instruction (P01s); TRADOC will also examine the 
potential to include an optimum instructor analysis within each POI. 
This data would allow the command to better articulate to HQDA the 
true needs and to understand the potential to rebalance the existing 
instructors across courses in support of the new training load. 

Recommendation 3: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of the Army 
direct Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) to establish metrics 
within its quality assurance program to enable TRADOC to evaluate how 
its workforce management actions, such as increasing reliance on 
contractors, impact the quality of training and use the data collected 
from these metrics to make adjustments to training as needed. 

DoD Response: Concur. The GAO report references a TRADOC Quality 
Assurance (QA) Program, with policy codified in TR 350-70, dated 
September 1999. As the Army's Executive Agent for the Army QA Program. 
TRADOC will implement initiatives to develop metrics and collect data 
that will enable it to evaluate its workforce management actions while 
assisting TRADOC and HQDA in assessing training effectiveness. 
However, establishing metrics within TRADOC's QA Program is contingent 
upon availability of resources and funding. Specifically, the QA 
Program must maintain the personnel required to collect the data as 
well as acquire statisticians to analyze the data for management 
decisions. If resourced to conduct this analysis, TRADOC anticipates 
developing the metrics by August 2012. 

Recommendation 4: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of the Army 
direct Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) to establish a plan to 
enable TRADOC to develop, review, and update doctrine and curricula by 
setting additional priority areas beyond Initial Military Training on 
which doctrine and training developers should focus and identifying 
timelines by which these reviews should be completed. 

DoD Response; Concur. The Department agrees with TRADOC establishing a 
plan to develop, review, and update doctrine and curricula. TRADOC's 
doctrine and curriculum update priorities are established to meet 
operational requirements that change based on the needs of the force. 
For the past decade, doctrine and curriculum update requirements have 
accelerated at an unprecedented rate. TRADOC has updated doctrine and 
curriculum at an unmatched rate and quality and is diligently working 
to reduce the backlog. 

HQ TRADOC publishes annual priorities and guidance in a FY TRADOC 
Campaign Plan. The Commanding General (CG). Combined Arms Center (CAC) 
serves as the lead for the doctrine core function within TRADOC and 
published specific FY 11 Doctrine Priorities and Guidance. This 
provided guidance to assist doctrine proponents in prioritizing and 
forecasting TRADOC's limited resources to support the most important 
doctrine development needs of the Army. Once TRADOC updates the 
manpower model for training developers, HQDA will be able to determine 
manpower requirements to meet training requirements. 

Midway through this fiscal year the CG TRADOC refined his doctrine 
development guidance in his "Doctrine 2015" strategy which called for 
the doctrine development process to be faster, fewer. shorter, 
clearer, and accessible to the force. The CG CAC is developing a 
detailed transition plan for "Doctrine 2015" (to be completed SILT 30 
September 2011) as well as a plan for managing the execution of 
"Doctrine 2015" in a four-phased approach (to be completed by December 
2015). 

[End of section] 

Related GAO Products: 

Military Training: Army and Marine Corps Face Challenges to Address 
Projected Future Requirements. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-720]. Washington, D.C.: July 16, 
2010. 

Military Readiness: Navy Needs to Reassess Its Metrics and Assumptions 
for Ship Crewing Requirements and Training. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-592]. Washington, D.C.: June 9, 
2010. 

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.: April 16, 2010. 

Reserve Forces: Army Needs to Reevaluate Its Approach to Training and 
Mobilizing Reserve Component Forces. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-720]. Washington, D.C.: July 17, 
2009. 

Military Training: Actions Needed to More Fully Develop the Army's 
Strategy for Training Modular Brigades and Address Implementation 
Challenges. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-936]. 
Washington, D.C.: August 6, 2007. 

Human Capital: A Guide for Assessing Strategic Training and 
Development Efforts in the Federal Government. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-546G]. Washington, D.C.: March 2004. 

Defense Management: Army Needs to Address Resource and Mission 
Requirements Affecting Its Training and Doctrine Command. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-214]. Washington, D.C.: February 
10, 2003. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] Department of the Army, Headquarters, United States Army Training 
and Doctrine Command Memorandum, Erosion of TRADOC's Core Competencies 
and Functions (Feb. 16, 2010). 

[2] We use "trainer" and "instructor" interchangeably in this report. 

[3] H.R. Rep. No. 111-491, at 256 (2010). 

[4] Student workload is defined as the total number of students TRADOC 
expects to train in a year. 

[5] Headquarters Department of the Army, Army Regulation 570-4, 
Manpower Management (Feb. 8, 2006). 

[6] U.S. Army Audit Agency, Table of Distribution and Allowances 
Workforce-Institutional Training, A-2010-0149-FFS (Alexandria, Va.: 
Aug. 4, 2010). 

[7] TRADOC, The U.S. Army Learning Concept for 2015, Pamphlet 525-8-2 
(Jan. 20, 2011). 

[8] Department of the Army, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-
3/5/7, Memorandum, Generating Force (GF) Manpower Mix Assessment (Mar. 
29, 2010). 

[9] TRADOC Regulation 350-70, Systems Approach to Training Management, 
Processes, and Products (March 1999). 

[10] TRADOC, Systems Approach to Training: Evaluation, Pamphlet 350-70-
4 (Jan. 12, 2004). 

[11] The Army Enterprise Accreditation Standards are used for 
measuring Army learning institution performance of functions required 
to educate and train. They require periodic updates to maintain 
relevancy. 

[12] A man-year is defined as the ideal amount of work that can be 
accomplished by one person in a year. 

[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 GAOís 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 GAOís 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: