This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-1000 
entitled 'Military Education: DOD Needs to Enhance Performance Goals 
and Measures to Improve Oversight of Military Academies' which was 
released on September 10, 2003.

This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office 
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a 
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately.

On January 7, 2004, this document was revised to add various footnote 
references missing in the text of the body of the document, and to 
enhance the formatting of Tables 15 and 16.

Report to the Subcommittee on Defense, Committee on Appropriations, 
House of Representatives:

United States General Accounting Office:

GAO:

September 2003:

Military Education:

DOD Needs to Enhance Performance Goals and Measures to Improve 
Oversight of Military Academies:

GAO-03-1000:

GAO Highlights:

Highlights of GAO-03-1000, a report to the Subcommittee on Defense, 
Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives 

Why GAO Did This Study:

Graduates of the service academies operated by the Army, Navy, and Air 
Force currently make up approximately 18 percent of the officer corps 
for the nation’s armed services. The academies represent the 
military’s most expensive source of new officers. The Department of 
Defense (DOD) pays the full cost of a student’s 4-year education at 
the academies; and the related cost has increased over the past 4 
years. Admission to the academies is highly competitive. The academies 
use a “whole person” method to make admission decisions. Recent 
studies by the Air Force raised questions about possible adverse 
effects of whole person admissions policies on student quality. GAO 
was asked to review all three service academies and specifically 
address the extent to which (1) DOD oversees the service academies, 
(2) applicants are granted waivers of academic standards, and (3) 
various groups of students differ in admissions scores and academy 
performance.

What GAO Found:

The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and 
Readiness (OUSD/P&R), the services, and the academies’ boards of 
visitors conduct considerable oversight of the academies’ operations 
and performance, but they lack a complete oversight framework. A 
complete oversight framework includes performance goals and measures 
against which the academies’ performance could be better assessed. 
OUSD/P&R and the services use the number and type of commissioned 
officers as the primary measure of academy performance. OUSD/P&R 
requires and receives reports on academy performance from the 
services. While data submitted in these reports provide perspective on 
current performance compared with past performance, without stated 
performance goals and measures, these reports do not offer OUSD/P&R or 
the services as good an insight into the academies performance as they 
could. Additionally, though the academy boards of visitors serve as an 
external oversight mechanism to focus attention on a wide range of 
issues, they also do not assess the academies’ performance against 
established performance goals and measures.

The academies do not grant waivers from academic criteria or have 
absolute minimum scores for admission. However, under the whole person 
approach, the academies can admit some applicants whose academic 
scores are lower than might normally be competitive for admission, but 
who in their totality (academics, physical aptitude, and leadership) 
are evaluated by academy officials as being capable of succeeding at 
the academy. 

In our review of the academy classes that started in 1998 (class of 
2002), we found that despite differences among various groups of 
students in their admissions scores and similar differences in their 
performance while at the academies, the differences in performance 
were not sizable. Some groups, such as females, performed better in 
some categories than the class as a whole and worse in others. Some 
groups (minorities, preparatory school graduates, recruited athletes, 
and students in the lower 30 percent of their class in terms of 
academic admissions scores) performed at lower levels on average in 
all categories than the class as a whole.

What GAO Recommends:

GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense direct the Office of the 
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (OUSD/P&R), in 
concert with the services, to further enhance performance goals and 
measures to improve oversight of the operations and performance of the 
service academies. In comments on a draft of this report, DOD 
concurred with GAO’s recommendation.

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-1000.

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click 
on the link above. For more information, contact Derek Stewart at 
(202) 512-5559 or stewartd@gao.gov.

[End of section]

Contents:

Letter:

Results in Brief:

Background:

DOD Lacks a Complete Framework for Oversight of the Academies:

Whole Person Approach Allows Academies Flexibility to Admit Students 
with a Range of Qualifications:

No Significant Differences in Admissions and Academy Performance 
between Various Groups of Students:

Conclusion:

Recommendation for Executive Action:

Agency Comments:

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:

Appendix II: Results of Statistical Analysis of Class of 2002 
Admissions and Academy Performance Scores:

Admissions and Performance Scores:

Relationships between Admissions and Performance Scores:

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Defense:

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:

Related GAO Products:

Tables:

Table 1: Civilian and Military Faculty at the Service Academies:

Table 2: Academy Operating Costs and Cost Per Graduate, Fiscal Years 
1999-2002.

Table 3: Average Admissions Scores for the Selected Groups in the Class 
That Started in 1998 at the U.S. Military Academy:

Table 4: Average Admissions Scores for the Selected Groups in the Class 
That Started in 1998 at the U.S. Naval Academy:

Table 5: Average Admissions Scores for the Selected Groups in the Class 
That Started in 1998 at the U.S. Air Force Academy:

Table 6: Percentage of the Selected Groups Making Up the Lower 30 
percent of the Classes in Terms of Their Academic Admissions Scores, by 
Academy:

Table 7: Student Performance for Selected Groups at the U.S. Military 
Academy:

Table 8: Student Performance for Selected Groups at the U.S. Naval 
Academy:

Table 9: Student Performance for Selected Groups at the U.S. Air Force 
Academy:

Table 10: Admissions and Academy Performance Scores for the Class of 
2002:

Table 11: Number of Students Graduating and Graduation Rates for the 
Class of 2002:

Table 12: Admissions and Performance Scores for the Class of 2002 at 
the U.S. Military Academy:

Table 13: Admissions and Performance Scores for the Class of 2002 at 
the U.S. Naval Academy:

Table 14: Admissions and Performance Scores for the Class of 2002 at 
the U.S. Air Force Academy:

Table 15: Regression Coefficients (Standardized Coefficients) from 
Linear Regression Models Testing Correlations between Academic and 
Whole Person Admissions Scores with Cumulative GPA, Cumulative MPA, and 
Order of Merit for the Class of 2002 at the Service Academies:

Table 16: Regression Coefficients (Standardized Coefficients) from 
Logistic Regression Models Testing Correlations Between Academic and 
Whole Person Admissions Scores and the Likelihood of Graduation for the 
Class of 2002 at the Service Academies:

Figures:

Figure 1: Basic Steps in the Academy Admissions Process:

Figure 2: Areas and Their Weights Considered in the U.S. Military 
Academy's Whole Person Admissions Process:

Figure 3: Areas and Their Weights Considered in the U.S. Naval 
Academy's Whole Person Admissions Process:

Figure 4: Areas and Their Weights Considered in the U.S. Air Force 
Academy's Whole Person Admissions Process:

Figure 5: Categories of Academy Nominations:

Abbreviations:

ACT: American College Testing:

DOD: Department of Defense:

GPA: grade point average:

MPA: military performance average:

OUSD/P&R: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and 
Readiness:

ROTC: Reserve Officer Training Corps:

SAT: Scholastic Aptitude Test:

United States General Accounting Office:

Washington, DC 20548:

September 10, 2003:

The Honorable Jerry Lewis 
Chairman 
The Honorable John P. Murtha 
Ranking Minority Member 
Subcommittee on Defense 
Committee on Appropriations 
House of Representatives:

Graduates of the service academies operated by the Army, Navy, and Air 
Force make up approximately 18 percent of the officer corps for the 
nation's armed services.[Footnote 1] The academies represent the most 
expensive source of new officers, compared with other sources for 
officers, such as Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) programs at 
colleges and universities or officer candidate/training schools for 
individuals who already have college degrees. The Department of Defense 
(DOD) pays the full cost of providing the 4-year programs of academic 
education, military training, physical conditioning, and pay for each 
student.[Footnote 2] In fiscal year 2002, DOD reported costs per 
graduate for the U.S. Military Academy, the U.S. Naval Academy, and the 
U.S. Air Force Academy were approximately $349,000, $275,000, and 
$333,000, respectively. These costs have increased over the past 4 
years. To ensure the best value for the investment in the academies, 
effective management principles are critical. Such principles include a 
complete oversight framework, with clear roles and responsibilities, as 
well as performance goals and measures against which to objectively 
assess performance.

With each academy accepting about 1,200 of its more than 10,000 
applicants a year, admission to the academies is highly competitive. 
Applicants must be selected or obtain a nomination, such as from a 
senator, representative, the President, or the Vice President, based on 
the categories established by law.[Footnote 3] Most nominations are 
reserved for Congress, which, therefore, has a central role in 
admitting students to the academies. In addition to basic age and 
medical qualifications, the academies' admissions process involves an 
assessment of applicants' academic achievement (e.g., Scholastic 
Aptitude Test--SAT--scores and grade point averages), physical 
aptitude, and extracurricular activities (i.e., leadership potential). 
Academy officials combine these assessments into a "whole person" 
admissions score that is used to determine an applicant's potential to 
graduate from an academy and potential fitness as a commissioned 
officer. Applicants compete for admission based on these scores.

Air Force studies have raised questions about possible adverse effects 
of whole person admissions policies on student quality. For example, 
the Air Force found that its whole person assessments and resulting 
admissions scores have led the Air Force Academy to admit an increasing 
number of students whose academic qualifications are below academic 
minimums, as well as to admit an increasing number of students 
recruited largely to participate in varsity intercollegiate athletics.

The House of Representatives report on defense appropriations for 
fiscal year 2003[Footnote 4] directed that we perform reviews of all 
three service academies and their respective preparatory 
schools.[Footnote 5] As part of the review of the service academies, we 
were also directed to obtain student and faculty perceptions of various 
aspects of student life at the academies. Issues associated with the 
academy preparatory schools and the results of surveys on aspects of 
student life are addressed in separate reports.[Footnote 6]

As agreed with your offices, this report addresses the following 
questions, to what extent:

does DOD oversee the academies' operations and performance?

are applicants granted waivers from academic criteria for admissions?

do various groups of students differ in admissions scores and academy 
performance?

In addition to reviewing documents and interviewing officials at all 
three academies, the service headquarters, the Office of the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (OUSD/P&R), and the 
academies' boards of visitors, we reviewed admissions policies and 
procedures and observed their use by academy officials in evaluating 
applications being considered for the incoming class of 2007. We also 
obtained and analyzed admissions and performance data for the student 
class that graduated in 2002. To compare student admissions 
qualifications and performance at the academies, we identified six 
major groups of students common to all academies: females, minorities, 
academy preparatory school graduates, recruited athletes, prior 
enlisted personnel, and students whose academic admission scores fell 
in the lower 30 percent of the entering class.[Footnote 7] Data on 
student performance included academic grade point average; military 
performance average, which is similar to a performance evaluation for 
commissioned officers; and class rank.[Footnote 8] It also included 
graduation rate. Other issues, such as recent controversies associated 
with alleged sexual assault, did not fall within the scope of this 
review. Further details on our scope and methodology are in appendix I. 
We conducted our work from October 2002 through May 2003 in accordance 
with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Results in Brief:

The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and 
Readiness (OUSD/P&R), the services, and the academies' boards of 
visitors conduct considerable oversight of the academies' operations 
and performance, but they lack a complete oversight framework. In 1991, 
our report concluded that better oversight of the academies was needed 
and made recommendations to improve DOD oversight. Since then, DOD has 
taken measures to address these issues, including establishing guidance 
on oversight of the academies and uniform academy cost reporting. 
However, DOD has not established a complete oversight framework, which 
would include not only clear roles and responsibilities, but also 
performance goals and measures against which to objectively assess 
performance. OUSD/P&R, the services, and the academies' boards of 
visitors have different oversight roles, but largely conduct oversight 
activities without the benefit of formalized performance goals and 
measures. OUSD/P&R and the services use the number and types of 
commissioned officers as the primary measure of academy performance. 
OUSD/P&R requires and receives reports on academy performance from the 
services.

While data submitted in these reports provide perspective on such 
performance measures as graduation rates, admissions trends for women 
and minorities, and information on the quality of admitted students, 
without stated performance goals and measures, these data do not offer 
OUSD/P&R or the services as good an insight into the academies' 
performance as they could. For example, the data collected by the 
academies show that the graduation rates have increased in the last 10 
years; however, there is no stated goal for graduation rate against 
which to judge whether this rate of increase is adequate. Other data 
collected by the academies indicate that the percentage of females and 
minorities has fluctuated over the last 3 years, but apart from 
admissions targets used by the Military Academy, there are no stated 
goals against which to measure the adequacy of these admissions trends. 
Additionally, academy officials regularly analyze data on student 
performance to determine the extent to which admissions standards can 
be changed to improve overall student performance at the academies. 
However, there are no stated goals for student body performance, apart 
from minimum graduation standards such as the cumulative academic grade 
point average, that might help the academies and other oversight bodies 
assess overall student performance. Additionally, each academy's board 
of visitors--an external oversight mechanism--focuses attention and 
actions on a wide range of operational and quality of life issues at 
the academies. However, the boards do not evaluate academy performance 
against established performance goals and measures. Without formal 
goals and measures that are, moreover, linked to mission statements, 
oversight bodies do not have sufficient focus for their efforts and 
cannot systematically assess an organization's strengths and weaknesses 
nor identify appropriate remedies that would help them achieve the best 
value for the nation's investment in the academies.

The academies do not grant waivers from academic criteria or have 
absolute minimum scores for admission. Under the whole person approach, 
the academies can admit some applicants whose academic scores are lower 
than might normally be competitive for admission, but who in their 
totality (academics, physical aptitude, and leadership) are evaluated 
by academy officials as being qualified and capable of succeeding at 
the academy. The only admissions criteria with an absolute minimum 
score for qualifying for admissions is physical aptitude. The academic 
and leadership criteria have a range of qualifying scores based on what 
general levels of ability are considered competitive during the 
admissions process. If an applicant's score is lower than the 
competitive range in academics, then admission officials have some 
flexibility in (1) further considering the applicant by re-examining 
the student's record for information that can produce further insight 
about his or her academic achievement and (2) weighing the extent to 
which the leadership component of the whole person score may offset the 
low component. It is possible for students to be admitted whose 
academic scores were not as competitive as some of their peers who may 
not have been admitted. The applicant is considered a risk and is 
evaluated through a deliberative process by academy officials on the 
basis of their judgment of whether the applicant is fully qualified and 
capable of succeeding at that academy. The subjective nature of this 
approach is consistent with the intent of the whole person concept, by 
which the academies want to admit students who also demonstrate 
leadership characteristics that cannot be quantified by purely 
objective scoring methods. Academy officials do not consider this 
approach to represent an academic waiver, but instead their judicious 
assessment of the whole person.

In our review of the academy classes that started in 1998 (class of 
2002), we found differences among various groups of students in their 
admissions scores and similar differences in their performance while at 
the academies; the differences in performance were not sizable. For the 
class data we reviewed, minorities, academy preparatory school 
graduates, recruited athletes, and prior enlisted students[Footnote 9] 
all had lower average admissions scores than the average for the class 
as a whole. Of those students in the lower 30 percent of the class in 
terms of academic admissions scores, about 44 percent were recruited 
athletes, between 25 and 31 percent were minorities, and between 20 and 
34 percent were preparatory school graduates. Regarding performance, we 
found differences at the academies between selected groups (i.e., 
females, minorities, preparatory school graduates, recruited athletes, 
prior enlisted students, and students in the lower 30 percent of the 
class in terms of academic admissions scores) and the class as a whole. 
Those differences varied but were generally not sizable. For example, 
females at one academy had a lower graduation rate than the class as a 
whole but a higher average academic grade point average and a higher 
average class rank. Some groups at all academies--such as minorities, 
preparatory school graduates, recruited athletes, and students in the 
lower 30 percent of their class in terms of academic admissions scores-
-performed at lower levels on average in all categories than the class 
as a whole, but these differences were not significant. For example, 
one of the lowest average academic grade point averages among the 
groups we reviewed was 2.61, whereas the average for the class as a 
whole at that academy was 2.93. A 2.0 grade point average is required 
to graduate. The lowest graduation rate for the class we reviewed was 
65 percent for the students in the lower 30 percent of their class in 
terms of academic admissions scores at one academy. The average 
graduation rate for the class as a whole at that academy was 74 
percent.

We are making a recommendation to improve DOD's oversight of operations 
and performance at the academies through the enhancement of performance 
goals and measures. In comments on a draft of this report, DOD 
concurred with our recommendation.

Background:

The Departments of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force each have 
their own educational institutions (academies) to produce a portion of 
each branch's officer corps:[Footnote 10]

* U.S. Military Academy (West Point, N.Y.), established in 1802;

* U.S. Naval Academy (Annapolis, Md.), established in 1845; and:

* U.S. Air Force Academy (Colorado Springs, Colo.), established in 
1954.

The academies are structured to provide a curriculum critical to the 
development of successful future officers in academic, military, and 
physical areas of achievement. Additionally, the academies emphasize 
the moral and ethical development of students through their respective 
honor codes and concepts.

There are approximately 4,000 students enrolled at each of the three 
service academies at any given time, each comprising four classes. In 
December 2002, Congress authorized an annual increase of up to 100 
students until the total number reaches 4,400 for each 
academy.[Footnote 11] In 2002 the Military Academy graduated 968 
students; the Naval Academy 977 students; and the Air Force Academy 894 
students. Faculty at the U.S. Military Academy and the U.S. Air Force 
Academy are comprised predominantly of military officers (79 and 75 
percent, respectively), while at the U.S. Naval Academy 59 percent of 
the faculty are civilians. Table 1 shows the composition of the faculty 
at the service academies.

Table 1: Civilian and Military Faculty at the Service Academies: 

Service academy: U.S. Military Academy; Total number of faculty: 622; 
Total number of civilian faculty (% of faculty): 131 (21%); Total 
number of military faculty (% of faculty): 491 (79%).

Service academy: U.S. Naval Academy; Total number of faculty: 555; 
Total number of civilian faculty (% of faculty): 326 (59%); Total 
number of military faculty (% of faculty): 229 (41%).

Service academy: U.S. Air Force Academy; Total number of faculty: 490; 
Total number of civilian faculty (% of faculty): 123 (25%); Total 
number of military faculty (% of faculty): 367 (75%).

Service academy: Total; Total number of faculty: 1,667; Total number of 
civilian faculty (% of faculty): 580 (35%); Total number of military 
faculty (% of faculty): 1,087 (65%).

Source: DOD.

Note: Faculty information is based on a snapshot of each academy in 
February 2003.

[End of table]

DOD reports that the total cost to operate all three academies in 
fiscal year 2002 was $990.7 million. Table 2 shows the reported 
operating costs and cost per graduate for each academy from fiscal year 
1999 through fiscal year 2002. We did not independently verify these 
costs.

Table 2: Academy Operating Costs and Cost Per Graduate, Fiscal Years 
1999-2002: 

Academy: Military Academy; Cost Category: Total operating costs; Fiscal 
year 1999: $301,058,452; Fiscal year 2000: $330,603,820; Fiscal year 
2001: $336,416,716; Fiscal year 2002: $364,971,975.

Cost Category: Cost per graduate; Fiscal year 1999: 312,150; Fiscal 
year 2000: 320,120; Fiscal year 2001: 339,318; Fiscal year 2002: 
349,327.

Academy: Naval Academy; Cost Category: Total operating costs; Fiscal 
year 1999: 245,749,679; Fiscal year 2000: 253,817,467; Fiscal year 
2001: 273,809,865; Fiscal year 2002: 292,696,358.

Cost Category: Cost per graduate; Fiscal year 1999: 254,983; Fiscal 
year 2000: 256,931; Fiscal year 2001: 266,033; Fiscal year 2002: 
275,001.

Academy: Air Force Academy; Cost Category: Total operating costs; 
Fiscal year 1999: 277,639,005; Fiscal year 2000: 314,972,559; Fiscal 
year 2001: 321,335,152; Fiscal year 2002: 333,056,023.

Cost Category: Cost per graduate; Fiscal year 1999: 305,945; Fiscal 
year 2000: 305,133; Fiscal year 2001: 313,456; Fiscal year 2002: 
322,750.

Source: DOD.

[End of table]

Prospective students must meet basic eligibility requirements for 
appointment to an academy. They must (1) be unmarried, (2) be a U.S. 
citizen, (3) be at least 17 years of age and must not have passed their 
twenty-third birthday on July 1 of the year they enter an academy, (4) 
have no dependents, and (5) be of good moral character.[Footnote 12]

After determining eligibility, a candidate submits an application to a 
preferred academy or academies. Each submitted application is required 
to include information such as, but not limited to, the candidate's (1) 
SAT scores (or American College Testing--ACT--examination scores); (2) 
high school grade point average (and class rank, if possible); (3) 
physical aptitude scores; (4) medical examination results; and (5) 
extracurricular activities. The academies admit those candidates that 
have secured a nomination and who represent, in the opinion of academy 
officials, the best mixture of attributes (academic, physical, and 
leadership) necessary to ensure success at the academies and as 
military officers.

The military academies use a "whole person" method to assess potential 
candidates in three major areas: (1) academics, (2) physical aptitude, 
and (3) leadership potential. Each academy uses the same basic 
approach. Admissions assessments are weighted toward academic scores 
that include objective tests and high school performance. Leadership 
potential is measured by assessing athletic and non-athletic 
extracurricular activities. Subjective assessments of potential 
candidates in these major areas also contribute to final admissions 
"scores." Such assessments include interviews with prospective 
candidates, teacher/coach evaluations, and analyses of writing samples. 
Though medical criteria differ between services, the medical 
examinations are conducted according to the same standards, under a 
joint DOD Medical Examination Review Board that manages the medical 
examination process and records for applicants to all 
academies.[Footnote 13]

Each academy is authorized to permit up to 60 foreign students to 
attend at any given time on a reimbursable basis by their country of 
origin.[Footnote 14] This number does not count against the authorized 
student strength of the academies. The admission of foreign students is 
covered by separate policies and procedures. Our review was limited to 
the policies and procedures for admitting U.S. citizens to the 
academies. Figure 1 shows the basic steps in the admissions process for 
all U.S. applicants.

Figure 1: Basic Steps in the Academy Admissions Process:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Students who are disenrolled from an academy after the start of their 
third year may be required to complete a period of active duty enlisted 
service of up to 4 years or may be required to reimburse the federal 
government for the cost of their education. Those who are disenrolled 
in their first 2 years do not incur an active service or reimbursement 
obligation.[Footnote 15]

United States Military Academy Admissions Process:

The United States Military Academy's admissions evaluation considers 
academics, leadership, and physical aptitude. Academic considerations 
include above-average high school or college academic records as well 
as strong performance on SAT/ACT. Additionally, the Military Academy 
considers recommendations from English, mathematics, and science 
teachers. The leadership potential considers demonstrations of 
leadership and initiative in sports, school, community, or church 
activities and strong recommendations from faculty and community 
leadership and is a more subjective assessment of character. Physical 
aptitude is based on a scored standardized test. This test is made up 
of pull-ups for men or the flexed-arm hang for women, push-ups, 
standing long jump, basketball throw, and shuttle run. Figure 2 shows 
the areas considered and the weights assigned to each area in the U.S. 
Military Academy's whole person admissions process.

Figure 2: Areas and Their Weights Considered in the U.S. Military 
Academy's Whole Person Admissions Process:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

United States Naval Academy Admissions Process:

The United States Naval Academy's admissions evaluation considers 
academics, leadership, physical aptitude, and technical interest. 
Academic considerations include above-average high school or college 
academic records as well as strong performance on SAT/ACT. 
Additionally, the Naval Academy considers recommendations from English 
and mathematics teachers. Assessment of leadership potential represents 
a subjective evaluation of character in which the academy considers 
demonstrations of leadership in terms of extracurricular activities in 
sports, school, community, or church and strong recommendations from 
faculty and community leadership. Physical aptitude is based on a 
scored, standardized test consisting of pull-ups for men or the flexed-
arm hang for women, push-ups, standing long jump, basketball throw, and 
shuttle run. Additionally, the Naval Academy considers the technical 
interest of a prospective student, which is measured through a 
questionnaire in the application packet and used to gauge interest in 
pursuing a technical degree. The intent of this requirement is to admit 
students that are interested in pursuing technical degrees, 
specifically nuclear and maritime engineering. The admissions board can 
also apply further points to an applicant's overall whole person score 
based on further consideration of an applicant's record, including such 
things as the results of the evaluation form filled out by the Naval 
Academy representative who interviewed the applicant. Figure 3 shows 
the areas considered and the weights assigned to each area in the U.S. 
Naval Academy's whole person admissions process.

Figure 3: Areas and Their Weights Considered in the U.S. Naval 
Academy's Whole Person Admissions Process:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

United States Air Force Academy Admissions Process:

The United States Air Force Academy's admissions evaluation considers 
academics, leadership, and an assessment by the selections panel. 
Academic considerations include above-average high school or college 
academic records as well as strong performance on SAT/ACT. 
Additionally, the Air Force Academy considers recommendations from 
English and mathematics teachers. Under leadership potential, the 
academy considers extracurricular activities in sports, school, 
community, or church and strong recommendations from faculty and 
community leadership. Finally, the Air Force Academy Selections Panel 
makes an assessment of all potential students. This assessment is 
composed of a pass/fail score from the physical aptitude examination 
and the evaluation of the academy's liaison officer evaluation, made 
after interviewing the applicant. The physical aptitude examination is 
made up of pull-ups for men or the flexed-arm hang for women, push-ups, 
standing long jump, basketball throw, and shuttle run. The leadership 
potential area and the admissions board include the more subjective 
assessments of a potential student. Figure 4 shows the areas considered 
and the weights assigned to each area in the U.S. Air Force Academy's 
whole person admissions process.

Figure 4: Areas and Their Weights Considered in the U.S. Air Force 
Academy's Whole Person Admissions Process:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Nomination and Appointment of Candidates:

The President of the United States alone appoints candidates to the 
academies.[Footnote 16] Before receiving an appointment, all candidates 
must secure one or more nominations according to the following 
categories:[Footnote 17]

* congressional (including a U.S. senator, representative, delegate, or 
the Vice President);

* service-connected (including, among others, children of disabled 
veterans, enlisted personnel in the active or reserve components, and 
students from ROTC programs or other designated honor school 
graduates); and:

* other (including the academy superintendents' nominees and other 
nominees to bring the incoming class to full strength).

Figure 5 shows the approximate distribution of categories of academy 
nominations, based on the types and numbers of nominees per category 
allowed by law.

Figure 5: Categories of Academy Nominations:

[See PDF for image]

Note: Percentages do not add to 100 due to rounding.

[End of figure]

Oversight of the Academies:

Oversight of the academies is the responsibility of three principal 
organizations: OUSD/P&R, the service headquarters, and the board of 
visitors of each academy. According to Department of Defense Directive 
1322.22 (Service Academies),[Footnote 18] OUSD/P&R serves as the DOD 
focal point for matters affecting the academies and has responsibility 
to assess academy operations and establish policy and guidance for 
uniform oversight and management of the military academies. The 
military departments perform the primary DOD oversight function for 
their respective academies. The superintendent of each academy reports 
directly to the uniformed head of his respective service (the Chiefs of 
Staff for the Army and the Air Force and the Chief of Naval Operations 
for the Navy), in accordance with the chain of command for each 
service. Each academy also has a board of visitors, mandated by 
law,[Footnote 19] that is comprised of congressional members and 
presidential appointees. These boards focus attention and action on a 
wide range of operational and quality of life issues at the academies.

As educational institutions, the service academies are also overseen by 
several nongovernmental organizations that are outside DOD purview. 
Each academy undergoes periodic review by a higher-education 
accreditation body associated with its region of the country,[Footnote 
20] usually involving a full review every 10 years with an interim 
review every 5 years. The accreditation bodies review such areas as 
core curriculum, strategic planning, self-assessments, diversity of 
faculty and students, and faculty credentials. The athletic programs of 
the academies are also subject to periodic certification by the 
National Collegiate Athletic Association. This body reviews academy 
athletics in terms of such issues as finances and impact on the 
education mission of the academies. We limited our review of oversight 
of the academies to DOD organizations and the boards of visitors.

DOD Lacks a Complete Framework for Oversight of the Academies:

The OUSD/P&R, the services, and the academies' boards of visitors 
conduct many oversight activities, but they lack a complete oversight 
framework. A complete oversight framework includes not only clear roles 
and responsibilities, but also performance goals and measures against 
which to objectively assess performance. Such elements embody the 
principles of effective management in which achievements are tracked in 
comparison with plans, goals, and objectives and the differences 
between actual performance and planned results are analyzed. Without 
formal goals and measures, oversight bodies do not have sufficient 
focus for their efforts and cannot systematically assess an 
organization's strengths and weaknesses nor identify appropriate 
remedies that would permit DOD to achieve the best value for the 
investment in the academies. In a prior report,[Footnote 21] GAO 
concluded that better external oversight of the academies was needed to 
provide useful guidance and suggestions for improvement. The report 
recommended that DOD improve oversight of the academies through such 
measures as establishing a focal point for monitoring academy issues in 
the Office of the Secretary of Defense and establishing guidance on 
uniform cost reporting.

OUSD/P&R and the services have established clear roles and 
responsibilities for oversight of the academies, with the former 
serving as the focal point for issues affecting all academies and the 
latter having direct oversight authority over their respective 
academies. DOD established guidance in 1994 for the oversight of the 
academies[Footnote 22] and for uniform reporting of costs and 
resources.[Footnote 23] OUSD/P&R is directly involved in those policy 
issues that affect all academies and require DOD-level attention and 
legislative matters. For example, the office was recently the DOD focal 
point on the issue of increasing authorized enrollment at the academies 
from 4,000 to 4,400. With respect to the academies, the office is 
chiefly concerned with monitoring the degree to which the services are 
meeting their goals for the accession of new officers.[Footnote 24] The 
office also coordinates major studies that affect the academies, such 
as a November 1999 report on the career progression of minority and 
women officers.

The services are responsible for direct oversight of their respective 
academies; and the academies are treated similarly to major military 
commands. The superintendents of the academies are general/flag 
officers who report directly to the uniformed heads of their services 
(the Chiefs of Staff for the Army and the Air Force and the Chief of 
Naval Operations for the Navy). In addition to overseeing the 
academies' budget through the same approval process as a major command 
activity, the services oversee the academies' operations and 
performance primarily through the academies' goal of meeting service 
officer accession targets. The superintendents are responsible for 
meeting those targets and, in so doing, are given wide discretion in 
such areas as modifying their specific admissions objectives and the 
process for matching graduates with service assignments. The service 
headquarters use a number of mechanisms to oversee academy performance. 
For example, each service headquarters provides officer accession 
targets to the academies so that the assignment of graduates and the 
make up of incoming student classes can be modified as necessary. In 
addition to general numbers of officers, each service also has a number 
of specialty officer fields that need to be filled, and the services 
also monitor the extent to which the academies will be able to meet 
those accession goals.

The services also directly oversee the academies by requiring the 
superintendents to report on and discuss their operations. For example, 
the Air Force uses an annual forum of the most senior Air Force 
officers to focus on the Air Force Academy with respect to how it is 
meeting the needs of the operational Air Force. The Navy uses similar 
senior officer conferences and frequent interaction between the 
superintendent and Navy headquarters to conduct oversight. The Army 
uses the U.S. Military Academy Forum, comprised of senior Army 
officers, to address academy operations issues. The superintendents of 
the three academies also hold annual meetings to discuss issues common 
to all academies. These mechanisms have resulted in such academy 
actions as curriculum changes to increase the number of technical 
degree majors, increasing language requirements, and increasing the 
number of students attending the academies.

While OUSD/P&R and the services conduct a wide variety of oversight 
activity, there are few stated performance goals against which to 
measure academy operations and performance. Each of the academies has a 
strategic plan that is focused on providing quality military and 
professional training and education in order to commission highly 
capable junior officers. These plans are approved by the service 
headquarters but are not generally used by the services as benchmarks 
against which to measure academy performance, and they do not contain 
specific goals against which to measure student performance. OUSD/P&R 
is required to assess and monitor academy operations based on the 
information provided in annual reports it requires from the service 
secretaries.[Footnote 25] These reports provide data on various aspects 
of performance, such as student demographics and trends, student 
quality, admissions and attrition trends, compensation for students and 
faculty, leadership and honor systems, and incidents of indiscipline.

The reports provide OUSD/P&R and the services with information on 
current and past performance for academy operations, but apart from 
officer accession goals, neither OUSD/P&R nor the services have 
specific stated performance goals against which to compare the 
information provided in the assessment reports, thus they do not have 
an explicit basis for judging the adequacy of their performance. For 
example, the data collected by the academies show that graduation rates 
have increased in the last 10 years; however, there is no stated goal 
for a graduation rate against which to judge whether this rate of 
increase is adequate. Other data collected by the academies indicate 
that the percentage of females and minorities has fluctuated over the 
last 3 years, but apart from admissions targets used by the U.S. 
Military Academy, there are no stated goals against which to assess 
these trends. Additionally, academy officials regularly analyze data on 
student body performance to determine the extent to which admissions 
standards can be changed to affect student body performance. However, 
there are no stated goals for student body performance, apart from 
minimum graduation standards, that might help the academies and other 
oversight bodies assess overall student performance.

The oversight efforts of each academy's board of visitors are similarly 
limited by the absence of sufficient performance goals and measures. 
Each of the academies has a board of visitors, mandated by law[Footnote 
26] and comprised of Members of Congress and presidential appointees, 
that is outside the DOD chain of command. The boards have a broad legal 
mandate to inquire into all aspects of academy operations.[Footnote 27] 
The boards meet several times a year to be briefed on and discuss 
academy operations and must conduct an annual visit to their respective 
academies. During these visits, the boards are briefed by academy staff 
on such issues as admissions, curriculum, recruiting, athletics, morale 
and welfare, and construction programs; they also interview students to 
obtain their perceptions of life at the academies. The boards also 
address inquiries to academy staff, which are usually followed up at 
subsequent meetings, and they make suggestions to improve operations or 
quality of life at the academies. For example, boards of visitors have 
recommended increased recruiting of qualified minority applicants from 
various congressional districts and increased surveying of students on 
quality of life issues.

The boards submit annual reports to the President on the status of and 
issues at the academies but do not evaluate academy operations and 
performance against established performance goals. The boards of 
visitors do not have dedicated staffs to conduct their work, and though 
board members may inquire into any aspect of academy operations, the 
agenda is set largely by the briefings presented to the boards by 
academy officials. Academy officials with whom we spoke were generally 
satisfied with the oversight provided by the boards of visitors, though 
there were concerns at the Air Force Academy about poor attendance by 
board members during annual visits to the academy.

Whole Person Approach Allows Academies Flexibility to Admit Students 
with a Range of Qualifications:

The academies do not grant waivers from academic criteria but do not 
have absolute minimum scores for admission. Under the whole person 
approach, the academies can admit some applicants whose academic scores 
are lower than might normally be competitive for admission, but who in 
their totality (academics, physical aptitude, and leadership potential) 
are deemed an acceptable risk and qualified to attend an academy. This 
admissions approach is consistent with the intent of the academies to 
admit students who also demonstrate leadership and initiative 
characteristics, which cannot be quantified by purely objective scoring 
methods.

When conducting their admissions processes, the academies do not set 
absolute minimum scores for academic ability. Rather, they establish a 
range of scores that would be considered competitive, based on past 
incoming class performance and academy research on the overall quality 
of the applicant pool. Prior to 2002, the Air Force Academy set 
absolute minimum academic scores, and a waiver was required to further 
consider an applicant who fell below that minimum, no matter how high 
his or her scores in the leadership area. However, the Air Force 
Academy no longer has absolute minimums and uses the same competitive 
range approach as the other academies. Under this approach, if an 
applicant's academic score is lower than the competitive range 
guidelines, academy officials have some flexibility to further consider 
the applicant. Academy officials will re-examine the applicant's record 
for information that might provide further insight about his or her 
academic achievement. For example, officials may contact high school 
teachers to inquire about the types and difficulty of the classes the 
applicant has been taking and his or her performance in those classes. 
Academy officials will also weigh the extent to which the leadership 
component of the applicant's whole person score offset the low 
component. The applicant is considered a risk and is evaluated through 
a deliberative process by academy officials on the basis of their 
judgment of whether the applicant is fully qualified and capable of 
succeeding at that academy. The subjective nature of this approach is 
consistent with the intent of the whole person concept, by which the 
academies want to admit students who also demonstrate leadership 
characteristics that cannot be quantified by purely objective scoring 
methods. Academy officials do not consider these judgments to 
constitute a waiver of academic standards, but rather a judicious 
assessment of the whole person. The process for assessing those 
applicants whose academic scores are lower than might normally be 
competitive is nonetheless similar to the former Air Force Academy 
process for granting waivers.

With over 10,000 applicants[Footnote 28] for each academy each year and 
about 1,200 students admitted, the academic standards are high. Academy 
data show that the academic quality of the applicants has remained high 
over the past 4 years, and the competitive ranges for academic scores 
used by the academies have remained the same or have increased during 
this time. However, it is possible for students to be admitted whose 
academic scores were not as competitive as some other applicants who 
may not have been admitted. Senators, representatives, and delegates 
may submit up to 10 nominees for each student vacancy available to him 
or her per academy. They may choose to designate one as a principal 
nominee.[Footnote 29] If an applicant receives a principal nomination 
and is in all other respects qualified, the academies must admit that 
applicant, even over an applicant on the same senator's, delegate's, or 
representative's nomination list with higher academic and/or whole 
person scores. The other nominated names become alternates for possible 
admission later in the admissions process.

Though some academies award credit for the extent to which an applicant 
surpasses the standards of the physical aptitude examination, there are 
minimum standards for the physical test that must be met. None of the 
academies uses a system of "waivers," except for medical conditions. An 
applicant can be waived for a medical condition, based on the 
deliberation and judgment of DOD medical personnel and the academy 
superintendent. For example, an applicant who is disqualified due to a 
vision condition may apply for and receive a waiver, based on 
subsequent surgical vision correction or determination by the academy 
superintendent that the applicant would be able to serve on active duty 
without the vision condition being a problem.

No Significant Differences in Admissions and Academy Performance 
between Various Groups of Students:

In our review of the academy classes that started in 1998 (class of 
2002), we found differences among various groups of students in their 
admissions scores and similar differences in their performance while at 
the academies, but the differences were not significant in magnitude. 
In terms of performance after admission to the academies,[Footnote 30] 
differences between these student groups and the class as a whole were 
also not sizable. We reviewed data for the following distinct 
groups:[Footnote 31]

* overall class,

* females,

* minorities,

* academy preparatory school graduates,

* recruited athletes,

* prior enlisted, and:

* lower 30 percent of class by academic admissions scores.

For the class data we reviewed, minorities, academy preparatory school 
graduates, recruited athletes, and prior enlisted students all had 
lower average admissions scores than the average for the class as a 
whole, though these differences varied. The differences between groups 
and the class as a whole were not sizable, generally falling within 5 
percent. Those differences that were statistically significant and 
outside the 5 percent range were still generally less than 10 percent 
of the class as a whole. Tables 3, 4, and 5, show the average 
admissions scores for the selected groups in the class that started in 
1998 at the Military, Naval, and Air Force Academies, respectively. 
Although each academy uses the same fundamental whole person approach, 
they use different scales to calculate scores. Therefore, the academic 
and whole person scores cannot be compared across academies.

Table 3: Average Admissions Scores for the Selected Groups in the Class 
That Started in 1998 at the U.S. Military Academy:

Average admissions score: Academic score; Overall (1,246): 600; Females 
(192): 603; Minorities (269): 583; Preparatory school graduates (184): 
546[B]; Recruited athletes (279): 558[A]; Prior enlisted (31): 594; 
Lower 30 percent of admissions class (377): 532[B].

Average admissions score: Whole person score; Overall (1,246): 6,006; 
Females (192): 6,022; Minorities (269): 5,865; Preparatory school 
graduates (184): 5,645[A]; Recruited athletes (279): 5,814; Prior 
enlisted (31): 5,861; Lower 30 percent of admissions class (377): 
5,609[A].

Source: GAO analysis, from Military Academy sources.

[A] Denotes a group average or percentage with a statistically 
significant difference greater than 5% from the overall average or 
percentage.

[B] Denotes a group average or percentage with a statistically 
significant difference greater than 10% from the overall average or 
percentage.

[End of table]

Table 4: Average Admissions Scores for the Selected Groups in the Class 
That Started in 1998 at the U.S. Naval Academy:

Average admissions score: Academic score; Overall (1,226): 618; Females 
(190): 624; Minorities (221): 594; Preparatory school graduates (146): 
545[B]; Recruited athletes (380): 596; Prior enlisted (76): 570[A]; 
Lower 30 percent of admissions class (368): 544[B].

Average admissions score: Whole person Score; Overall (1,226): 65,732; 
Females (190): 65,719; Minorities (221): 63,769; Preparatory school 
graduates (146): 61,254[A]; Recruited athletes (380): 64,233; Prior 
enlisted (76): 62,256[A]; Lower 30 percent of admissions class (368): 
61,404[A].

Source: GAO analysis, from Naval Academy sources.

[A] Denotes a group average or percentage with a statistically 
significant difference greater than 5% from the overall average or 
percentage.

[B] Denotes a group average or percentage with a statistically 
significant difference greater than 10% from the overall average or 
percentage.

[End of table]

Table 5: Average Admissions Scores for the Selected Groups in the Class 
That Started in 1998 at the U.S. Air Force Academy:

Average admissions score: Academic Score; Overall (1,216): 3,202; 
Females (190): 3,216; Minorities (229): 3,123; Preparatory school 
graduates (157): 3,112; Recruited athletes (312): 3,043; Prior enlisted 
(44): 3,188; Lower 30 percent of admissions class (366): 2,863[B].

Average admissions score: Whole person Score; Overall (1,216): 798; 
Females (190): 805; Minorities (229): 782; Preparatory school graduates 
(157): 774; Recruited athletes (312): 773; Prior enlisted (44): 792; 
Lower 30 percent of admissions class (366): 751[A].

Source: GAO analysis, from Air Force Academy sources.

[A] Denotes a group average or percentage with a statistically 
significant difference greater than 5% from the overall average or 
percentage.

[B] Denotes a group average or percentage with a statistically 
significant difference greater than 10% from the overall average or 
percentage.

[End of table]

Of those students in the lower 30 percent of the class in terms of 
academic admissions scores, about 44 percent were recruited athletes, 
between 25 and 31 percent were minorities, and between 20 and 34 
percent were preparatory school graduates. Table 6 shows the percentage 
of the selected groups making up the lower 30 percent of the classes in 
terms of their academic admissions scores, by academy.

Table 6: Percentage of the Selected Groups Making Up the Lower 30 
percent of the Classes in Terms of Their Academic Admissions Scores, by 
Academy:

Numbers in percent.

Military Academy; Females: 16; Minorities: 31; Preparatory school 
graduates: 34; Recruited athletes: 44; Prior enlisted: 3.

Naval Academy; Females: 13; Minorities: 29; Preparatory school 
graduates: 32; Recruited athletes: 45; Prior enlisted: 13.

Air Force Academy; Females: 14; Minorities: 25; Preparatory school 
graduates: 20; Recruited athletes: 44; Prior enlisted: 5.

Source: GAO analysis, from DOD sources.

Note: Numbers do not add to 100 percent because each of the groups can 
contain members of another group.

[End of table]

We also found differences in performance after admission to the 
academies between selected groups and the class as a whole. For 
example, females at the Naval Academy had a lower graduation rate than 
the class as a whole, but they had a higher average academic grade 
point average (cumulative GPA) than the class as a whole and higher 
average class rank (order of merit). The differences in performance 
between the selected groups and the class as a whole were not sizable, 
generally falling within 5 percent. Those differences that were 
statistically significant and outside the 5 percent range were still 
generally less than 10 percent of the class as a whole. Tables 7, 8, 
and 9 show how the selected groups performed at the Military, Naval, 
and Air Force Academies, respectively. See appendix II for further 
information on comparisons of performance by defined student groups.

Table 7: Student Performance for Selected Groups at the U.S. Military 
Academy:

Performance score: Average cumulative GPA; Overall (1,246): 2.99; 
Females (192): 2.99; Minorities (269): 2.82; Preparatory school 
graduates (184): 2.61[A]; Recruited athletes (279): 2.81; Prior 
enlisted (31): 3.14; Lower 30 percent of admissions class (377): 
2.66[A].

Performance score: Average cumulative MPA; Overall (1,246): 3.28; 
Females (192): 3.26; Minorities (269): 3.21; Preparatory school 
graduates (184): 3.26; Recruited athletes (279): 3.20; Prior enlisted 
(31): 3.37; Lower 30 percent of admissions class (377): 3.21.

Performance score: Average order of merit; Overall (1,246): 3.03; 
Females (192): 3.04; Minorities (269): 2.86[A]; Preparatory school 
graduates (184): 2.75[A]; Recruited athletes (279): 2.90; Prior 
enlisted (31): 3.06; Lower 30 percent of admissions class (377): 
2.78[A].

Performance score: Graduation rate; Overall (1,246): 78%; Females 
(192): 76%; Minorities (269): 71%[A]; Preparatory school graduates 
(184): 72%; Recruited athletes (279): 76%; Prior enlisted (31): 71%; 
Lower 30 percent of admissions class (377): 71%[A].

Source: GAO analysis, from Military Academy sources.

[A] Denotes a group average or percentage with a statistically 
significant difference greater than 5% from the overall average or 
percentage.

[B] Denotes a group average or percentage with a statistically 
significant difference greater than 10% from the overall average or 
percentage.

[End of table]

Table 8: Student Performance for Selected Groups at the U.S. Naval 
Academy:

(Continued From Previous Page)

Performance score: Average cumulative GPA; Overall (1,226): 2.97; 
Females (190): 3.01; Minorities (221): 2.82[A]; Preparatory school 
graduates (146): 2.67[A]; Recruited athletes (380): 2.86; Prior 
enlisted (76): 3.02; Lower 30 percent of admissions class (368): 
2.67[A].

Performance score: Average cumulative MPA; Overall (1,226): 3.12; 
Females (190): 3.16; Minorities (221): 3.02; Preparatory school 
graduates (146): 2.99; Recruited athletes (380): 3.08; Prior enlisted 
(76): 3.19; Lower 30 percent of admissions class (368): 3.00.

Performance score: Average order of merit; Overall (1,226): 489; 
Females (190): 456[A]; Minorities (221): 590[B]; Preparatory school 
graduates (146): 658[B]; Recruited athletes (380): 551[B]; Prior 
enlisted (76): 453; Lower 30 percent of admissions class (368): 661[B].

Performance score: Graduation rate; Overall (1,226): 80%; Females 
(190): 71%[B]; Minorities (221): 75%; Preparatory school graduates 
(146): 77%; Recruited athletes (380): 79%; Prior enlisted (76): 72%; 
Lower 30 percent of admissions class (368): 76%[A].

Source: GAO analysis, from Naval Academy sources.

[A] Denotes a group average or percentage with a statistically 
significant difference greater than 5% from the overall average or 
percentage.

[B] Denotes a group average or percentage with a statistically 
significant difference greater than 10% from the overall average or 
percentage.

[End of table]

Table 9: Student Performance for Selected Groups at the U.S. Air Force 
Academy:

Performance score: Average cumulative GPA; Overall (1,216): 2.93; 
Females (190): 2.97; Minorities (229): 2.78[A]; Preparatory school 
graduates (157): 2.61[B]; Recruited athletes (312): 2.79; Prior 
enlisted (44): 2.89; Lower 30 percent of admissions class (366): 
2.64[A].

Performance score: Average cumulative MPA; Overall (1,216): 2.90; 
Females (190): 2.93; Minorities (229): 2.89; Preparatory school 
graduates (157): 2.83; Recruited athletes (312): 2.81; Prior enlisted 
(44): 2.93; Lower 30 percent of admissions class (366): 2.84.

Performance score: Average order of merit; Overall (1,216): 469; 
Females (190): 440; Minorities (229): 545[B]; Preparatory school 
graduates (157): 663[B]; Recruited athletes (312): 568[B]; Prior 
enlisted (44): 499; Lower 30 percent of admissions class (366): 646[B].

Performance score: Graduation rate; Overall (1,216): 74%; Females 
(190): 75%; Minorities (229): 71%; Preparatory school graduates (157): 
69%; Recruited athletes (312): 71%; Prior enlisted (44): 66%; Lower 30 
percent of admissions class (366): 65%[B].

Source: GAO analysis, from Air Force Academy sources.

[A] Denotes a group average or percentage with a statistically 
significant difference greater than 5% from the overall average or 
percentage.

[B] Denotes a group average or percentage with a statistically 
significant difference greater than 10% from the overall average or 
percentage.

[End of table]

Some groups--such as minorities, preparatory school graduates, 
recruited athletes, and students in the lower 30 percent of their class 
in terms of academic admissions scores--performed at lower levels on 
average in all categories than the class as a whole, but these 
differences varied between academies and by category and were not 
sizable. For example, one of the lowest average academic grade point 
averages for the groups we reviewed was 2.61 and the average for the 
class as a whole at that academy was 2.93. A 2.0 grade point average is 
required to graduate for academic and military averages. Similarly, the 
lowest graduation rate for the class we reviewed was 65 percent for the 
students in the lower 30 percent of their class in terms of academic 
admissions scores at one academy. The average graduation rate for the 
class as a whole was 74 percent.

Our analysis of data for the students who entered the academies in 1998 
(class of 2002) indicates that admissions scores are generally good 
predictors of performance at the academies. Of the admissions scores, 
the academic component of the whole person scores was often the best 
predictor of academic performance at the academies, and the whole 
person scores in their entirety were often the best predictors of 
military performance at the academies. Both academic and whole person 
admissions scores were good predictors of class rank. In general, whole 
person admissions scores were better predictors of graduation rate than 
the academic admissions scores alone.

Conclusion:

Although the service academies receive oversight from a number of 
organizations and have established guidance for that oversight that 
includes the reporting of a wide range of data on academy operations, 
without clear and agreed-upon performance goals, there is no objective 
yardstick against which to fully measure academy performance and 
operations, apart from the officer accessions goals currently used. 
Establishment of such performance goals is consistent with the 
principles of effective management and would enhance the quality of 
oversight already performed by OUSD/P&R, the services, and the academy 
boards of visitors, permitting them to more clearly note those areas in 
which the academies excel, highlight areas where improvement is 
warranted, and achieve the best value for the nation's investment in 
the academies.

Recommendation for Executive Action:

To improve DOD oversight of the operations and performance of the 
service academies, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct 
the OUSD/P&R, in concert with the services, to further enhance 
performance goals and measures whereby the information required in 
annual assessment reports can be better evaluated. These performance 
goals should be developed for each academy and, where appropriate, in 
common for all academies. The specific goals should coincide with 
performance elements agreed upon by the services and OUSD/P&R and might 
include such things as graduation rates, demographic composition of 
student classes, assessments of officer performance after graduation, 
and other performance information already collected by the academies, 
including performance characteristics of various groups of students.

Agency Comments:

In comments on a draft of this report, DOD agreed with our 
recommendation to further enhance performance goals and measures for 
the service academies whereby the information required in annual 
assessment reports can be better evaluated. DOD further stated that the 
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness 
OUSD/P&R will (1) monitor development of improved goals and measures by 
the service academies, to include facilitating the development of 
common performance goals where appropriate and (2) update DOD: 

Directive 1322.22, Service Academies, as required. DOD's written 
comments are included in their entirety in appendix III.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 
committees; the Secretaries of Defense, the Army, the Navy, and the Air 
Force; and the Director, Office of Management and Budget. We will also 
make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report 
will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://
www.gao.gov.

Please contact me on (202) 512-5559 if you or your staff have any 
questions concerning this report. Key contributors are listed in 
appendix V.

[End of section]

Derek B. Stewart 
Director 
Defense Capabilities and Management:

Signed by Derek B. Stewart: 

[End of section]

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:

To assess the extent to which DOD oversees the service academies' 
operations and performance, we interviewed officials at the Office of 
the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness; the Army, 
Navy, and Air Force headquarters; and the U.S. Military, U.S. Naval, 
and U.S. Air Force Academies. We reviewed documents on service and DOD 
oversight criteria and structures, reporting mechanisms, academy 
strategic plans, academy annual reports on operations and performance, 
boards of visitors' minutes and reports, and superintendents conference 
reports. We also attended a U.S. Naval Academy Board of Visitors 
meeting at the Naval Academy in December 2002 and a U.S. Military 
Academy Board of Visitors meeting in Washington, D.C., in March 2003. 
Additionally, we reviewed criteria on the principles of effective 
management, such as those found in Standards for Internal Control in 
the Federal Government.[Footnote 32]

To assess the extent to which academy applicants are granted waivers 
from academic admissions criteria, we interviewed officials from the 
Military, Naval, and Air Force Academies and reviewed documents on 
admissions policies, standards, and practices. We discussed with 
academy officials their execution of the whole person approach, 
including how they assess applicants' records, the weights applied to 
the various components of the whole person score (academic, leadership, 
and physical aptitude), and the justification for points given to 
various aspects of an applicant's scores. We also reviewed data from 
each academy on trends in academic admissions scores. During site 
visits to each academy, we observed the evaluation of applicant 
packages for the incoming class of 2007 by academy officials, including 
how the whole person approach was applied for admissions scores. We 
also observed meetings of senior officials at each academy where 
applicants' records were evaluated and final admissions decisions were 
made.

To assess the extent to which admissions and academy performance scores 
differ between various groups of students, we analyzed admissions 
scores and academy performance scores for all students who started at 
the three academies in 1998 and should have graduated in 2002. This 
represented the most recent group of students for which complete data 
were available. We requested and received from each academy a database 
that included data on both admission scores and information about 
students' performance while attending the academy. We did not 
independently assess data reliability, but we obtained assurances about 
data completeness, accuracy, and reliability from academy officials 
responsible for maintaining data at each academy. We analyzed these 
data separately for each academy since each academy calculated 
admission scores or performance scores somewhat differently. We 
identified six major groups of students common to all academies: 
females, minorities, academy preparatory school graduates, recruited 
athletes, prior enlisted personnel, and students whose academic 
admission scores fell in the lower 30 percent of the entering class (we 
chose the latter group in order to capture information on students 
whose academic admissions scores may have been lower than might 
normally be competitive). Information specifying a student's membership 
in each of these groups was provided in the databases from the 
academies. To assess differences, we first compared the mean 
performance scores for each group to the overall mean for each 
performance measure for the entire class. See appendix II for details 
on the results of our analysis of the relationships between admissions 
and performance scores.

In addition, we assessed the relationship between admissions scores and 
performance at the academies by using the whole person admission score 
and the academic component of the admissions score. We estimated the 
effects of those scores on four measures of performance for students at 
the academies: (1) cumulative grade point average (GPA), (2) cumulative 
military performance average (MPA), (3) order of merit (class 
standing), and (4) graduation rate. We used cumulative GPA upon 
graduation as an indicator of academic performance at the academies and 
military performance averages upon graduation as an indicator of 
military performance at the academies. Order of merit is a measure of 
class standing at each academy that combines academic and military 
grade performance and is a final rank for each graduating student. At 
both the Air Force Academy and the Naval Academy, order of merit is an 
actual class rank number. At the Military Academy, however, order of 
merit could range between 0 and 4.0 and was given on the same scale as 
grade point averages. For each academy, we analyzed the association of 
both the academic component scores and whole person admission scores 
with each of the performance scores using regression models. 
Relationships between the admissions scores and cumulative GPA, 
cumulative MPA, and order of merit were estimated using linear 
regression models. The relationships between these two admissions 
scores and the likelihood of graduating were estimated using logistic 
regression models. See appendix II for more details on the results of 
those analyses.

Issues related to alleged sexual assaults at the academies fell outside 
the scope of our objectives. We conducted our work from October 2002 
through May 2003 in accordance with generally accepted government 
auditing standards.

[End of section]

Appendix II: Results of Statistical Analysis of Class of 2002 
Admissions and Academy Performance Scores:

This appendix provides the results of our analyses of both admissions 
and performance scores for the class of 2002 at the U.S. Military 
Academy, the U.S. Naval Academy, and the U.S. Air Force Academy.

Admissions and Performance Scores:

We obtained data from all three service academies that included 
information on admissions scores (academic and whole person), 
performance scores while at the academy (cumulative academic grade 
point average, military performance average, and order of merit), 
attrition information where applicable, and various demographic 
characteristics for all students entering each academy in 1998. Table 
10 shows the minimum, maximum and average admissions and performance 
scores for students at each academy. Table 11 shows graduation rates at 
each academy.

Table 10: Admissions and Academy Performance Scores for the Class of 
2002:

Academic Admissions score; Military Academy: Average: 600; Military 
Academy: Min: 430; Military Academy: Max: 791; Naval Academy: 
Average: 618; Naval Academy: Min: 440; Naval Academy: Max: 788; 
Air Force Academy: Average: 3,202; Air Force Academy: Min: 
2,492; Air Force Academy: Max: 4,005.

Whole person score; Military Academy: Average: 6,006; Military Academy: 
Min: 4,587; Military Academy: Max: 7,188; Naval Academy: 
Average: 65,732; Naval Academy: Min: 51,651; Naval Academy: Max: 
82,250; Air Force Academy: Average: 798; Air Force Academy: 
Min: 655; Air Force Academy: Max: 931.

Cum. GPA; Military Academy: Average: 2.99; Military Academy: Min: 1.97; 
Military Academy: Max: 4.19; Naval Academy: Average: 2.97; 
Naval Academy: Min: 2.03; Naval Academy: Max: 4.00; Air Force 
Academy: Average: 2.93; Air Force Academy: Min: 2.06; Air Force 
Academy: Max: 3.97.

Cum. MPA; Military Academy: Average: 3.28; Military Academy: Min: 2.09; 
Military Academy: Max: 3.99; Naval Academy: Average: 3.12; 
Naval Academy: Min: 2.17; Naval Academy: Max: 3.85; Air Force 
Academy: Average: 2.90; Air Force Academy: Min: 2.32; Air Force 
Academy: Max: 3.92.

Order of merit; Military Academy: Average: 3.03; Military Academy: Min: 
1.30; Military Academy: Max: 3.92; Naval Academy: Average: 
489; Naval Academy: Min: 1; Naval Academy: Max: 977; Air Force 
Academy: Average: 469; Air Force Academy: Min: 1; Air Force Academy: 
Max: 929.

Source: GAO analysis, from DOD sources.

Note: For the U.S. Air Force Academy, an additional step during the 
selection panel process results in a lower whole person score than the 
component parts.

[End of table]

Table 11: Number of Students Graduating and Graduation Rates for the 
Class of 2002:

Graduation rate; Military Academy: Number: 968; Military Academy: 
Percent: 78%; Naval Academy: Number: 977; Naval Academy: 
Percent: 80%; Air Force Academy: Number: 894; Air Force 
Academy: Percent: 74%.

Source: GAO analysis, from DOD sources.

[End of table]

Next, we compared the average admissions scores, performance scores, 
and graduation rates of the six student groups to these overall scores 
and rates. Tables 12, 13, and 14 show the average admission scores and 
the four measures of student performance for the overall sample, and 
for the six student groups, for each of the academies. Because we have 
data for the population of students in this class and there is no 
sampling error, the standard error of these estimates are small and 
differences that could be considered small in magnitude may in fact be 
statistically significant. In the tables below, differences that are 
statistically significant (p<.05) and exceed 5 percent are considered 
meaningful and noted, though such differences may not be practically 
significant when compared with class performance requirements overall. 
For example, at the Naval Academy the overall average academic 
admissions score is 618, 5 percent of 618 is about 31. Only those group 
average academic admissions scores that are statistically significant 
and more than 31 points below 618 are noted with an "a." Differences 
that are greater than 10 percent are marked with a "b.":

Table 12: Admissions and Performance Scores for the Class of 2002 at 
the U.S. Military Academy:

Academic admissions; Overall: (1,246): 600; Females: (192): 603; 
Minorities: (269): 583; Prep school graduates: (184): 546[B]; Recruited 
athletes: (279): 558[A]; Prior enlisted personnel: (31): 594; Lower 30 
percent of admissions class: (377): 532[B].

Whole person admissions score; Overall: (1,246): 6,006; Females: (192): 
6,022; Minorities: (269): 5,865; Prep school graduates: (184): 
5,645[A]; Recruited athletes: (279): 5,814; Prior enlisted personnel: 
(31): 5,861; Lower 30 percent of admissions class: (377): 5,609[A].

Four performance measures: 

1. Cumulative GPA; Overall: (1,246): 2.99; Females: (192): 2.99; 
Minorities: (269): 2.82; Prep school graduates: (184): 2.61[A]; 
Recruited athletes: (279): 2.81; Prior enlisted personnel: (31): 3.14; 
Lower 30 percent of admissions class: (377): 2.66[A].

2. Cumulative MPA; Overall: (1,246): 3.28; Females: (192): 3.26; 
Minorities: (269): 3.21; Prep school graduates: (184): 3.26; Recruited 
athletes: (279): 3.20; Prior enlisted personnel: (31): 3.37; Lower 30 
percent of admissions class: (377): 3.21.

3. Order of merit; Overall: (1,246): 3.03; Females: (192): 3.04; 
Minorities: (269): 2.86[A]; Prep school graduates: (184): 2.75[A]; 
Recruited athletes: (279): 2.90; Prior enlisted personnel: (31): 3.06; 
Lower 30 percent of admissions class: (377): 2.78[A].

4. Graduation rate; Overall: (1,246): 78%; Females: (192): 76%; 
Minorities: (269): 71%[A]; Prep school graduates: (184): 72%; Recruited 
athletes: (279): 76%; Prior enlisted personnel: (31): 71%; Lower 30 
percent of admissions class: (377): 71%[A].

Source: GAO analysis, from Military Academy sources.

[A] Denotes a group average or percentage with a statistically 
significant (p<.05) difference greater than 5% from the overall average 
or percentage.

[B] Denotes a group average or percentage with a statistically 
significant (p<.05) difference greater than 10% from the overall 
average or percentage.

[End of table]

Table 13: Admissions and Performance Scores for the Class of 2002 at 
the U.S. Naval Academy:

Academic admissions; Overall: (1,226): 618; Females: (190): 624; 
Minorities: (221): 594; Prep school graduates: (146): 545[B]; Recruited 
athletes: (380): 596; Prior enlisted personnel: (76): 570[A]; Lower 30 
percent of admissions class: (368): 544[B].

Whole Person admissions score; Overall: (1,226): 65,732; Females: 
(190): 65,719; Minorities: (221): 63,769; Prep school graduates: (146): 
61,254[A]; Recruited athletes: (380): 64,233; Prior enlisted personnel: 
(76): 62,256[A]; Lower 30 percent of admissions class: (368): 
61,404[A].

Four performance measures: 

1. Cumulative GPA; Overall: (1,226): 2.97; Females: (190): 3.01; 
Minorities: (221): 2.82[A]; Prep school graduates: (146): 2.67[A]; 
Recruited athletes: (380): 2.86; Prior enlisted personnel: (76): 3.02; 
Lower 30 percent of admissions class: (368): 2.67[A].

2. Cumulative MPA; Overall: (1,226): 3.12; Females: (190): 3.16; 
Minorities: (221): 3.02; Prep school graduates: (146): 2.99; Recruited 
athletes: (380): 3.08; Prior enlisted personnel: (76): 3.19; Lower 30 
percent of admissions class: (368): 3.00.

3. Order of merit; Overall: (1,226): 489; Females: (190): 456[A]; 
Minorities: (221): 590[B]; Prep school graduates: (146): 658[B]; 
Recruited athletes: (380): 551[B]; Prior enlisted personnel: (76): 453; 
Lower 30 percent of admissions class: (368): 661[B].

4. Graduation rate; Overall: (1,226): 80%; Females: (190): 71%[B]; 
Minorities: (221): 75%; Prep school graduates: (146): 77%; Recruited 
athletes: (380): 79%; Prior enlisted personnel: (76): 72%; Lower 30 
percent of admissions class: (368): 76%[A].

Source: GAO analysis, from Naval Academy sources.

[A] Denotes a group average or percentage with a statistically 
significant (p<.05) difference greater than 5% from the overall average 
or percentage.

[B] Denotes a group average or percentage with a statistically 
significant (p<.05) difference greater than 10% from the overall 
average or percentage.

[End of table]

Table 14: Admissions and Performance Scores for the Class of 2002 at 
the U.S. Air Force Academy:

Academic admissions; Overall: (1,216): 3,202; Females: (190): 3,216; 
Minorities: (229): 3,123; Prep school graduates: (157): 3,112; 
Recruited athletes: (312): 3,043; Prior enlisted personnel: (44): 
3,188; Lower 30 percent of admissions class: (366): 2,863[B].

Whole Person admissions score; Overall: (1,216): 798; Females: (190): 
805; Minorities: (229): 782; Prep school graduates: (157): 774; 
Recruited athletes: (312): 773; Prior enlisted personnel: (44): 792; 
Lower 30 percent of admissions class: (366): 751[A].

Four performance measures: 

1. Cumulative GPA; Overall: (1,216): 2.93; Females: (190): 2.97; 
Minorities: (229): 2.78[A]; Prep school graduates: (157): 2.61[B]; 
Recruited athletes: (312): 2.79; Prior enlisted personnel: (44): 2.89; 
Lower 30 percent of admissions class: (366): 2.64[A].

2. Cumulative MPA; Overall: (1,216): 2.90; Females: (190): 2.93; 
Minorities: (229): 2.89; Prep school graduates: (157): 2.83; Recruited 
athletes: (312): 2.81; Prior enlisted personnel: (44): 2.93; Lower 30 
percent of admissions class: (366): 2.84.

3. Order of merit; Overall: (1,216): 469; Females: (190): 440; 
Minorities: (229): 545[B]; Prep school graduates: (157): 663[B]; 
Recruited athletes: (312): 568[B]; Prior enlisted personnel: (44): 499; 
Lower 30 percent of admissions class: (366): 646[B].

4. Graduation rate; Overall: (1,216): 74%; Females: (190): 75%; 
Minorities: (229): 71%; Prep school graduates: (157): 69%; Recruited 
athletes: (312): 71%; Prior enlisted personnel: (44): 66%; Lower 30 
percent of admissions class: (366): 65%[B].

Source: GAO analysis, from Air Force Academy sources.

[A] Denotes a group average or percentage with a statistically 
significant (p<.05) difference greater than 5% from the overall average 
or percentage.

[B] Denotes a group average or percentage with a statistically 
significant (p<.05) difference greater than 10% from the overall 
average or percentage.

[End of table]

Relationships between Admissions and Performance Scores:

Regression models were used to assess the relationship between 
admission scores and performance at the three academies. We used linear 
regression models to examine relationships between admission scores and 
GPA, MPA, and order of merit. To examine the relationship between 
admission scores and the likelihood of graduating we used a logistic 
regression model. Both the academic admission score and the whole 
person score were included as independent variables in each model. We 
estimated separate regression models for each academy. The results of 
these regressions are shown in tables 15 and 16.

The tables show both regression coefficients and standardized 
coefficients. In general, regression coefficients are interpreted as 
the predicted change in the dependent variable for every unit change in 
the independent variables. Here, we have scaled the admissions scores 
so that the regression coefficients in the table can be interpreted as 
the predicted change in the relevant measure of success for every 100-
point increase in the academic or "whole person" admission score. For 
example, overall at the U.S. Air Force Academy, for every 100-point 
increase in the academic admission score we expect to see a 0.06 
increase in GPA. For every 100-point increase in the "whole person" 
score, we expect to see a 0.18 increase in GPA. Both relationships are 
statistically significant, meaning that both the academic score and the 
"whole person" score are significant predictors of cumulative GPA at 
the academy.

We cannot compare the size of these coefficients across the three 
academies, though, because the academic and "whole person" scores are 
on different scales. Because the size of the unstandardized regression 
coefficients is affected by the scale of the independent variables (the 
admissions scores), we use standardized regression coefficients to 
compare them. These appear in parentheses in the tables. To estimate 
these coefficients, all of the coefficients are standardized by 
dividing the regression coefficient by the ratio of the standard 
deviation of the success measure to standard deviation of the admission 
score. The standardized regression coefficients, therefore, represent 
the change in the measure of success for each change of one standard 
deviation in admission scores. Using standardized coefficients, one can 
conclude that the coefficient that is larger in magnitude has a greater 
effect on the measures of success. Using the same U.S. Air Force 
Academy example, we see that while the relationships between both 
academic and "whole person" scores and GPA are significant, the 
relationship between academic scores and GPA is actually a stronger one 
than the relationship between the "whole person" score and GPA. 
Overall, while the academic scores are often a better predictor of 
academic performance at the academies (GPA), the "whole person" scores 
are often better predictors of military performance (MPA). The academic 
admissions scores have no effect on MPA at the Military and Air Force 
Academies and the whole person scores, not the academic admissions 
scores, predict likelihood of graduating at all three academies.

We also used the R2 statistic to estimate how much of the variation in 
each performance score can be explained by both academic and whole 
person admission scores. The admission scores explained about 30 
percent of the variation in GPAs at both the Naval and Air Force 
Academies and about 40 percent of the variation in GPAs at the Military 
Academy. The admission scores explained between a quarter and a third 
of the variation in order of merit across the three academies. However, 
admission scores did not explain as much of the variation in either 
military performance scores or graduation rates. Therefore, while both 
types of admission scores are significant predictors of performance at 
the academy, they only explain between 7 and 40 percent of the 
variation in performance at the academies, and only a very small 
percentage of the variability in the likelihood of graduating. Other 
factors not studied here, such as the military training and academic 
environment students experience at the academies, may contribute to 
performance more than just students' admissions scores do.

Table 15: Regression Coefficients (Standardized Coefficients) from 
Linear Regression Models Testing Correlations between Academic and 
Whole Person Admissions Scores with Cumulative GPA, Cumulative MPA, and 
Order of Merit for the Class of 2002 at the Service Academies:

Military Academy class overall: 

Cumulative GPA: Academic admission score: .42; (.56)[A]; 
Cumulative GPA: Whole person score: .01; (.09); 
Cumulative GPA: R2 = .42; 
Cumulative MPA: Academic admission score: -.04; (-.11); 
Cumulative MPA: Whole person score: .03; (.44)[A]; 
Cumulative MPA R2 = .12; 
Order of Merit: Academic admission score: .18; (.34)[A]; 
Order of Merit: Whole person score: .02; (.29)[A];
Order of Merit: R2 = .37.

Naval Academy class overall; 

Cumulative GPA: Academic admission score: .28; (.38)[A]; 
Cumulative GPA: Whole person score: .002; (.18);
Cumulative GPA: R2 = .30; 
Cumulative MPA: Academic admission score: .09; (.18)[A];  
Cumulative MPA: Whole person score: .001; (.19)[A]; 
Cumulative MPA R2 = .13; 
Order of Merit: Academic admission score: -157.62; (.35)[A]; 
Order of Merit: Whole person score: -1.13; (-.17)[A];
Order of Merit: R2 = .26.

Air Force Academy class overall; 

Cumulative GPA: Academic admission score: .06; (.38)[A]; 
Cumulative GPA: Whole person score: .18; (.20)[A]; 
Cumulative GPA: R2 = .31; 
Cumulative MPA: Academic admission score: -.01; (-.14); 
Cumulative MPA: Whole person score: .21; (.37)[A]; 
Cumulative MPA R2 = .07; 
Order of Merit: Academic admission score: -27.89; (-.30)[A]; 
Order of Merit: Whole person score: -147.29; (-.25)[A];
Order of Merit: R2 = .29.

Source: GAO analysis, from DOD sources. 

Note: Because of the difference in scales for admissions scores between 
academies, the size of the coefficients cannot be compared across 
academies.

[A] Denotes statistically significant (p<.05) relationships.

[End of table]

Table 16: Regression Coefficients (Standardized Coefficients) from 
Logistic Regression Models Testing Correlations Between Academic and 
Whole Person Admissions Scores and the Likelihood of Graduation for the 
Class of 2002 at the Service Academies:

Military Academy class overall: 
Graduation: Academic admission score: -.11; (-.03); 
Graduation: Whole person score: .11; (.24)[A]; 
Graduation: R2 = .02.

Naval Academy class overall; 
Graduation: Academic admission score: -.36; (-.13); 
Graduation: Whole person score: .01; (.23)[A]; 
Graduation: R2 = .01.

Air Force Academy class overall; 
Graduation: Academic admission score: .01; (.02); 
Graduation: Whole person score: .75; (.20)[A]; 
Graduation: R2 = .03.

Source: GAO analysis, from DOD sources.

Note: Because of the difference in scales for admissions scores between 
academies, the size of the coefficients cannot be compared across 
academies.

[A] Denotes statistically significant (p<.05) relationships.

[End of table]

[End of section]

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Defense:

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 4000 DEFENSE PENTAGON 
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20301-4000:

AUG 25 2003:

PERSONNEL AND READINESS:

Mr. Derek B. Stewart:

Director, Defense Capabilities and Management United States General 
Accounting Office Washington, D.C. 20548:

Dear Mr. Stewart:

This is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the General 
Accounting Office (GAO) draft report, GAO-03-1000, "MILITARY EDUCATION: 
DoD Needs to Enhance Performance Goals and Measures to Improve 
Oversight of Military Academies," dated July 31, 2003 (GAO Code 
350270).

The Department concurs with the report's conclusion that the Office of 
the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, in concert 
with the Services, should further enhance performance goals and 
measures for the Service academies whereby the information required in 
annual assessment reports can be better evaluated.

Numerous current guidelines regulate the performance of the Service 
academies. However, the lack of specific performance goals in precise 
areas such as graduation or attrition rates prevents full analysis of 
the annual data collected. Therefore, performance goals should be 
developed for each academy and, where appropriate, in common for all 
academies to address these, and potentially other, areas of interest.

The enclosure addresses the specific recommendation made by the GAO. 
The Department appreciates the opportunity to comment on the draft 
report.

Sincerely,

Charles S. Abell 
Principal Deputy:

Signed by Charles S. Abell: 

Enclosure: As stated:

GAO-03-1000/GAO CODE 350270:

"MILITARY EDUCATION: DOD NEEDS TO ENHANCE PERFORMANCE GOALS AND 
MEASURES TO IMPROVE OVERSIGHT OF MILITARY ACADEMIES":

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE COMMENTS TO THE RECOMMENDATION:

RECOMMENDATION: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense 
direct the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and 
Readiness (OUSD/P&R), in concert with the Services, to further enhance 
performance goals and measures whereby the information required in 
annual assessment reports can be better evaluated. These performance 
goals should be developed for each academy and, where appropriate, in 
common for all academies. The specific goals should coincide with 
performance elements agreed upon by the Services and OUSD/P&R and might 
include such things as graduation rates, demographic composition of 
student classes, assessments of officer performance after graduation, 
and other performance information already collected by the academies, 
including performance characteristics of various groups of students. 
(Page 32/Draft Report).

DoD RESPONSE: Concur. The development of better measures by OUSD(P&R) 
in conjunction with the Military Departments to assist in assessment of 
the Service academies will enhance performance goals and allow more 
useful evaluation of the information currently required in the annual 
assessment reports. OUSD(P&R) will monitor development of improved 
goals and measures by the Service academies, to include facilitating 
the development of common performance goals where appropriate, and will 
update Department of Defense Directive 1322.22, Service Academies, as 
required. ECD is March 2004.

[End of section]

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:

GAO Contact:

Sandra F. Bell (202) 512-8981:

Staff Acknowledgments:

In addition to the individual named above, Gabrielle M. Anderson, 
Herbert I. Dunn, Brian G. Hackett, Joseph W. Kirschbaum, Wendy M. 
Turenne, and Susan K. Woodward also made key contributions to this 
report.

[End of section]

Related GAO Products:

Military Education: DOD Needs to Align Academy Preparatory Schools' 
Mission Statements with Overall Guidance and Establish Performance 
Goals. GAO-03-1017. Washington, D.C.: September 2003.

Military Education: Student and Faculty Perceptions of Student Life at 
the Military Academies. GAO-03-1001. Washington, D.C.: September 2003.

DOD Service Academies: Problems Limit Feasibility of Graduates Directly 
Entering the Reserves. GAO/NSIAD-97-89. Washington, D.C.: March 24, 
1997.

DOD Service Academies: Comparison of Honor and Conduct Adjudicatory 
Processes. GAO/NSIAD-95-49. Washington, D.C.: April 25, 1995.

DOD Service Academies: Academic Review Processes. GAO/NSIAD-95-57. 
Washington, D.C.: April 5, 1995.

DOD Service Academies: Update on Extent of Sexual Harassment. GAO/
NSIAD-95-58. Washington, D.C.: March 31, 1995.

Coast Guard: Cost for the Naval Academy Preparatory School and Profile 
of Minority Enrollment. GAO/RCED-94-131. Washington, D.C.: April 12, 
1994.

Military Academy: Gender and Racial Disparities. GAO/NSIAD-94-95. 
Washington, D.C.: March 17, 1994.

DOD Service Academies: Further Efforts Needed to Eradicate Sexual 
Harassment. GAO/T-NSIAD-94-111. Washington, D.C.: February 3, 1994.

DOD Service Academies: More Actions Needed to Eliminate Sexual 
Harassment. GAO/NSIAD-94-6. Washington, D.C.: January 31, 1994.

Academy Preparatory Schools. GAO/NSIAD-94-56R. Washington, D.C.: 
October 5, 1993.

Air Force Academy: Gender and Racial Disparities. GAO/NSIAD-93-244. 
Washington, D.C.: September 24, 1993.

Military Education: Information on Service Academies and Schools. GAO/
NSIAD-93-264BR. Washington, D.C.: September 22, 1993.

Naval Academy: Gender and Racial Disparities. GAO/NSIAD-93-54. 
Washington, D.C.: April 30, 1993.

DOD Service Academies: More Changes Needed to Eliminate Hazing. GAO/
NSIAD-93-36. Washington, D.C.: November 16, 1992.

DOD Service Academies: Status Report on Reviews of Student Treatment. 
GAO/T-NSIAD-92-41. Washington, D.C.: June 2, 1992.

Service Academies: Historical Proportion of New Officers During 
Benchmark Periods. GAO/NSIAD-92-90. Washington, D.C.: March 19, 1992.

DOD Service Academies: Academy Preparatory Schools Need a Clearer 
Mission and Better Oversight. GAO/NSIAD-92-57. Washington, D.C.: March 
13, 1992.

Naval Academy: Low Grades in Electrical Engineering Courses Surface 
Broader Issues. GAO/NSIAD-91-187. Washington, D.C.: July 22, 1991.

DOD Service Academies: Improved Cost and Performance Monitoring Needed. 
GAO/NSIAD-91-79. Washington, D.C.: July 16, 1991.

Review of the Cost and Operations of DOD's Service Academies. GAO/T-
NSIAD-90-28. Washington, D.C.: April 4, 1990.

FOOTNOTES

[1] The Marine Corps does not have its own academy. The Naval Academy 
graduates both Navy and Marine Corps officers.

[2] Students attending the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, New 
York, and the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, Colorado, are 
called "cadets," while those attending the U.S. Naval Academy, in 
Annapolis, Maryland, are called "midshipmen." We refer to cadets and 
midshipmen collectively as "students."

[3] 10 U.S.C. §§ 4342, 6954, and 9342.

[4] H.R. Rept. 107-532, at 14-15 (2002).

[5] The academy preparatory schools exist to prepare selected students 
who are not ready academically to attend one of the academies.

[6] U.S. General Accounting Office, Military Education: DOD Needs to 
Align Academy Preparatory Schools' Mission Statements with Overall 
Guidance and Establish Performance Goals, GAO-03-1017 (Washington, 
D.C.: September 2003); and Military Education: Student and Faculty 
Perceptions of Student Life at the Military Academies, GAO-03-1001 
(Washington, D.C.: September 2003).

[7] Each group may contain members of the other groups.

[8] Class rank is referred to as "order of merit" by the academies.

[9] Each of these groups can contain members from other groups.

[10] Other sources for commissioned officers include ROTC programs at 
colleges and universities and officer candidate/training schools for 
individuals who already have college degrees.

[11] Pub. L. 107-314, Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2003, § 532, December 2, 2002.

[12] 10 U.S.C. §§ 4346, 6958, and 9346; and Department of Defense, 
Directive 1322.22, Service Academies, § 4.3, August 24, 1994. 

[13] See Department of Defense, Directive 5154.25, DOD Medical 
Examination Review Board, June 11, 1981; Directive 6130.3, Physical 
Standards for Appointment, Enlistment, or Induction, December 15, 2000; 
and Instruction 6130.4, Criteria and Procedure Requirements for 
Physical Standards for Appointment, Enlistment, or Induction in the 
Armed Forces, December 14, 2000.

[14] 10 U.S.C. §§ 4344, 6957, and 9344.

[15] Department of Defense, Directive 1332.23, Service Academy 
Disenrollment, §§ 6.1 and 6.2, February 19, 1988.

[16] 10 U.S.C. §§ 4341a, 6953, and 9341a.

[17] 10 U.S.C. §§ 4342, 6954, and 9342.

[18] Department of Defense, Directive 1322.22, Service Academies § 5.1, 
August 24, 1994. DOD is currently revising this directive.

[19] 10 U.S.C. §§ 4355, 6968, and 9355.

[20] Commission on Higher Education of the Middle States Association of 
Colleges and Schools (Military and Naval Academies) and Commission of 
Institutions of Higher Education of the North Central Association of 
Colleges and Schools (Air Force Academy).

[21] U.S. General Accounting Office, DOD Service Academies: Improved 
Cost and Performance Monitoring Needed, GAO/NSIAD-91-79 (Washington, 
D.C.: July 16, 1991).

[22] Department of Defense, Directive 1322.22, Service Academies, 
August 24, 1994. DOD is currently revising this directive.

[23] Department of Defense, Instruction 1025.4, Service Academy 
Resources Report, October 18, 1994.

[24] The academies are one of the sources for officers. The others 
include reserve officer training programs at colleges and universities, 
officer candidate/training schools, and direct commissioning programs.

[25] DOD Directive 1322.22 §§ 5.1.2 and 6.1.

[26] 10 U.S.C. §§ 4355, 6968, and 9355.

[27] 10 U.S.C. §§ 4355, 6968, and 9355.

[28] This includes the total number of students who applied and not the 
number that received a nomination.

[29] 10 U.S.C. §§ 4342, 6954, and 9342.

[30] We used the following performance factors to measure student 
performance at the academies: cumulative grade point average, 
cumulative military performance average, order of merit (class rank), 
and graduation rate (for each group of students).

[31] Each of these groups can contain members from other groups.

[32] U.S. General Accounting Office, Standards for Internal Control in 
the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 (Washington, D.C.: November 
1999).

GAO's Mission:

The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, 
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability 
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use 
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides 
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make 
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to 
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, 
integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains 
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 
graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its 
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order 
GAO Products" heading.

Order by Mail or Phone:

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to:

U.S. General Accounting Office

441 G Street NW,

Room LM Washington,

D.C. 20548:

To order by Phone: 	

	Voice: (202) 512-6000:

	TDD: (202) 512-2537:

	Fax: (202) 512-6061:

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:

Public Affairs:

Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.

General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.

20548: