United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to Congressional Committees

March 1999 MILITARY HOUSING

Costs of Separate

Barracks for Male and

Female Recruits in

Basic Training

GAO/NSIAD-99-75

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

National Security and

International Affairs Division

B-282081 

March 1, 1999

The Honorable John Warner

Chairman

The Honorable Carl Levin

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Armed Services

United States Senate

The Honorable Floyd D. Spence

Chairman

The Honorable Ike Skelton

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Armed Services

House of Representatives

In response to a mandate in the National Defense Authorization Act for

Fiscal Year 1999, we determined each military service’s costs if required to

provide housing for male and female recruits during basic training in

separate structures.1

 We also (1) obtained the services’ views on housing

male and female recruits in separate barracks and (2) reviewed the

services’ compliance with the act’s requirement to provide separate and

secure areas for male and female recruits if they are housed in the same

barracks.

Background In June 1998, the Secretary of Defense approved plans of the military

services to improve initial entry training programs and policies. The plans

included measures to provide for the safety, security, privacy and

appropriate supervision of recruits in barracks, a goal that responds to

recommendations made by the Federal Advisory Committee on

Gender-Integrated Training and Related Issues (also known as the

Kassebaum-Baker panel). With these measures in place, the Army, Navy,

and Air Force planned to continue housing male and female recruits on

separate floors or in separate areas of the same barracks. The Marine

Corps planned to continue housing male and female recruits in separate

barracks.

Housing for male and female recruits has also been a concern of the

Congress. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999

required the services to provide separate and secure housing for male and

1

P.L. 105-261 section 521(d), October 17, 1998.

Page 1 GAO/NSIAD-99-75 Military Housing
B-282081 

female recruits with separate entrances and with sleeping and latrine areas

separated by permanent walls.2

 According to the act, if an installation

cannot meet this requirement by October 1, 2001, it must house males and

females in separate facilities.

The services conduct gender-integrated basic training at Forts Leonard

Wood, Jackson, and McClellan;3

 Great Lakes Naval Training Command;

and Lackland Air Force Base. The Marine Corps conducts

gender-segregated basic training at Marine Corps Recruit Depot, Parris

Island. The Army plans to move Fort McClellan’s gender-integrated basic

training to Fort Leonard Wood in fiscal year 1999 and begin

gender-integrated basic training at Fort Sill in May 1999.

Results in Brief We determined that the services would not incur additional construction

costs if they housed male and female recruits in separate barracks. Our

analysis showed that on the basis of the peak number of male and female

recruits at each basic training installation during fiscal year 1998, the

barracks capacity at each installation was sufficient to house male and

female recruits in separate barracks. To meet personnel requirements over

the next 5 years, the Army and the Navy forecast an increase in the annual

number of recruits in basic training. If the two services’ forecast is

accurate, some new barracks would need to be constructed to meet

recruit housing requirements. However, our analysis showed that the

amount of new construction and the associated costs would be the same

whether male and female recruits are housed in the same or in separate

barracks.

The Army had previously estimated that $271 million would be needed for

barracks construction if male and female recruits were housed in separate

barracks. The Army based this estimate on the assumption that, to

maintain unit integrity, it would house only one training unit in a barracks.

Thus, the Army assumed that barracks areas vacated when females moved

out would not be reassigned to males from other training units and that

new barracks would be constructed for the females. We believe that

effective leadership and management oversight could overcome problems

in sharing of barracks space and that the added costs of constructing

separate buildings could thereby be avoided. The Army already assigns

2

P.L. 105-261 section 521(a), (b), and (c), October 17, 1998.

3

For the purposes of this report, we have included in basic training the Army’s One Station Unit

Training. This training combines basic training and advanced individual training into one continuous

course.

Page 2 GAO/NSIAD-99-75 Military Housing
B-282081 

more than one training unit to its newer 1,200-person recruit barracks

providing each unit with a separate area of the barracks. Our analysis

assumed that recruit barracks could be shared by more than one training

unit and that each unit could be provided a separate floor or area for

housing its members.

Army, Navy, and Air Force officials opposed housing male and female

recruits in separate barracks. According to these officials,

gender-integrated training is important in order to train recruits in a

fashion mirroring the way they will operate and fight in their operational

units, and this training can be conducted most effectively and efficiently

when male and female recruits are assigned to separate areas of the same

barracks. They also said that current recruit housing practices already

provide separate and secure housing and that little, if any, additional

security would be achieved if males and females were housed in separate

buildings. They further said that placing males and females in separate

barracks would (1) increase requirements for enlisted female supervisors

to manage the barracks, thereby exacerbating an existing shortage of

females in this skill area and (2) add training costs because of the time lost

traveling between barracks whenever males and females attended the

same training event.

According to service officials, recruit barracks at gender-integrated basic

training installations, except for some at Fort Jackson, comply with the

recruit housing requirements of the National Defense Authorization Act

for Fiscal Year 1999. Male and female recruits are assigned to separate and

secure sleeping and latrine areas on different floors or in discrete sections

of the barracks. Separate entrances are provided to the male and female

housing areas, and a security watch normally controls access to the areas.

To bring Fort Jackson’s barracks into full compliance, the Army plans to

replace temporary walls in older barracks with permanent walls and

install alarmed, metal doors. These modifications are estimated to cost

about $314,000 and are scheduled to be completed by March 30, 1999.

During our January 1999 visits to the installations that conduct

gender-integrated basic training, we toured several barracks. These

barracks provided separate and secure sleeping and latrine areas for males

and females.

Appendixes I through IV contain details of our analysis of each service’s

costs if required to provide housing for male and female recruits in

separate barracks. Appendix V provides a summary of our analysis.

Appendix VI contains our objectives, scope, and methodology.

Page 3 GAO/NSIAD-99-75 Military Housing
B-282081 

Agency Comments

and Our Evaluation

In oral comments on a draft of this report, the Department of Defense

(DOD) did not agree with the results of our analysis showing that no

additional barracks construction costs would be incurred if male and

female recruits lived in separate barracks. DOD endorsed the Army’s view

that all soldiers assigned to a recruit training company should be housed

in the same barracks for unit cohesion and to instill values and teamwork.

If males and females were required to live in separate buildings, DOD stated

that only one company should be housed in a barracks to maintain unit

integrity. To accomplish this, DOD stated that additional barracks costing

$271 million would be needed at Army gender-integrated basic training

installations.

We agree that unit integrity is an important element of the Army’s training

doctrine. However, limiting a barracks to a single training unit would leave

large areas of some buildings unoccupied if female recruits were moved to

separate buildings. Spending $271 million to build additional barracks, yet

leaving entire barracks floors vacant would, in our opinion, be wasteful.

Using the Army’s own argument, the principal of unit integrity would

already be broken by housing female members of training units in separate

buildings. Housing different training companies in separate areas or on

separate floors of a single barracks would not appear to erode unit

integrity to any additional extent yet would provide more efficient use of

space and minimize construction costs.

DOD disagreed with our conclusion that no additional construction funds

would be required at the Navy’s recruit training installation if males and

females were required to live in separate barracks. DOD reiterated the

Navy’s position that $32 million in added construction would be needed to

provide new barracks of similar design to existing barracks and to provide

some extra capacity needed for assignment flexibility. While maintaining

similar construction designs and permitting flexibility would be desirable,

we believe it would be wasteful to spend additional funds on facilities that,

in fact, are not required, simply for the purposes of conformity and

flexibility.

DOD also stated that while our analysis of Air Force barracks spaces is

technically correct, it assumed that all barracks would be used for housing

recruits. As such, DOD stated that the analysis did not consider that the Air

Force plans to keep one barracks closed at any given time to provide for

renovations. If all barracks were used for housing, the planned

renovations would have to be terminated and there would also be some

increase in costs to operate and maintain the additional building. We have

Page 4 GAO/NSIAD-99-75 Military Housing
B-282081 

modified our report to reflect this comment. However, the Air Force’s

recruit housing capacity numbers 7,000 and its peak recruit housing

requirement numbers 5,684. With the extra housing capacity, we believe

that, as an alternative to halting planned renovations, the Air Force could

perform the renovation work in phases by closing sections of a barracks

instead of an entire barracks at a time.

Notwithstanding its support for separate male and female barracks in the

Marine Corps, DOD stated it supported Army, Navy, and Air Force views

that male and female recruits should continue to be housed in separate

areas of the same barracks.

DOD also provided some technical comments, which we have incorporated

as appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to other interested congressional

committees; the Secretaries of Defense, the Army, the Navy, and the Air

Force; and the Commandant of the Marine Corps. We will also make

copies available to other interested parties on request.

Please contact me at (202) 512-5140 if you or your staff have any questions

about this report. Major contributors to this report are listed in 

appendix VII.

Mark E. Gebicke

Director, Military Operations

 and Capabilities Issues

Page 5 GAO/NSIAD-99-75 Military Housing
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

Separate Barracks in

the Army

8

Separate Barracks at Fort Leonard Wood 8

Separate Barracks at Fort Jackson 10

Separate Barracks at Fort Sill 11

Army Estimates of Additional Barracks Costs 12

Army Concerns About Separate Barracks 12

Appendix II 

Separate Barracks in

the Navy

14

Costs of Separate Barracks 14

Navy Concerns About Separate Barracks 15

Compliance With Separate and Secure Provisions 15

Appendix III 

Separate Barracks in

the Air Force

17

Costs of Separate Barracks 17

Air Force Concerns About Separate Barracks 18

Compliance With Separate and Secure Provisions 18

Appendix IV 

Separate Barracks in

the Marine Corps

20

Costs of Separate Barracks 20

Marine Corps Comments About Separate Barracks 20

Compliance With Separate and Secure Provisions 20

Appendix V 

Comparison of Peak

Recruit Barracks

Requirements and

Costs for Fiscal Year

2003

22

Appendix VI 

Objectives, Scope,

and Methodology

23

Page 6 GAO/NSIAD-99-75 Military Housing
Contents

Appendix VII 

Major Contributors to

This Report

25

Table Table V:1 Comparison of Barracks Requirements and Costs 22

Abbreviations

DOD Department of Defense

Page 7 GAO/NSIAD-99-75 Military Housing
Appendix I 

Separate Barracks in the Army

The Army conducts gender-integrated basic training at Fort Leonard

Wood, Missouri; Fort Jackson, South Carolina; and Fort McClellan,

Alabama.1

 Because the Army is transferring Fort McClellan’s

gender-integrated training to Fort Leonard Wood in fiscal year 1999, we

included Fort McClellan’s trainee population as part of our analysis of

facilities at Fort Leonard Wood. The Army also plans to begin

gender-integrated basic training at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, in May 1999.

Separate Barracks at

Fort Leonard Wood

Fort Leonard Wood has 30 similar, three-story barracks. With a maximum

capacity of 290 recruits in each building, Fort Leonard Wood’s total recruit

housing capacity is 8,700 trainees.2

 Females are assigned to the first floor

and males normally are assigned to the second and third floors.

During fiscal year 1998, the peak recruit population at Fort Leonard Wood

numbered 5,267, including 3,922 males and 1,345 females. If Fort

McClellan’s fiscal year 1998 training load had also been conducted at Fort

Leonard Wood, the peak recruit population would have increased to 7,601,

consisting of 5,674 males and 1,927 females. On the basis of this peak

population and the capacity of the existing barracks inventory, our

analysis showed that Fort Leonard Wood could provide housing for males

and females in separate buildings with no additional barracks construction

costs. Assigning male and female recruits to separate barracks would no

longer allow for all members of a training company to be housed in the

same barracks. Our analysis assumed that male and female barracks

would house recruits from more than one training company although each

company could be provided a separate floor for housing its members.

Over the next 5 years, the Army projects a substantial increase—about

21 percent—in its annual recruit training load. On the basis of this

projected increase, we estimated that Fort Leonard Wood’s fiscal 

year 2003 peak recruit training population would be 9,292 recruits,

consisting of 6,725 males and 2,567 females. To meet the housing needs for

these recruits, Fort Leonard Wood would need additional barracks

capacity, even if males and females continued to be housed in the same

barracks. Although plans have not been finalized, the Army recognizes the

1

For the purposes of this report, we included in basic training the Army’s One Station Unit Training.

This training combines basic training and advanced individual training into one continuous course.

2

Because of several factors, including limited latrine and laundry facilities in the barracks, Fort

Leonard Wood usually assigns one training unit, called a company, with 240 recruits to each barracks.

However, headquarters officials responsible for the Army’s barracks facilities confirmed that each of

the barracks can adequately house 290 recruits. For this reason, in our analysis we used 290 as the

capacity of each barracks.

Page 8 GAO/NSIAD-99-75 Military Housing
Appendix I 

Separate Barracks in the Army

need to construct additional barracks to meet future recruit housing

requirements.

Our analysis showed that Fort Leonard Wood would need 592 additional

barracks spaces to meet the projected recruit housing requirement in

fiscal year 2003 if males and females are housed in the same barracks. The

analysis showed that if males and females are housed in separate barracks,

Fort Leonard Wood would need 635 additional barracks spaces. In either

case, three new barracks each housing 290 recruits would be needed to

meet the housing requirement. For this reason, construction costs would

be the same whether males and females are housed in the same or in

separate barracks.

Our estimate of the cost to construct three recruit barracks similar to Fort

Leonard Wood’s existing barracks is about $22 million in fiscal year 2000

dollars. However, the Army’s current concept for new recruit barracks

calls for the construction of a larger complex consisting of barracks and

other facilities for dining, administration, training, and support functions.

The Army’s standard plan for this barracks complex includes housing for

1,200 recruits, company operations and training spaces, a battalion

headquarters, classrooms, a dining hall, a central energy plant, and an

outdoor running track. The Army estimated that such a complex, which

would meet the projected additional recruit housing requirements at Fort

Leonard Wood, would cost about $56 million. Regardless of how the Army

decides to meet the projected recruit housing requirement, no additional

barracks construction costs would be required if male and female recruits

were housed in separate barracks. Appendix V contains additional details

of our analysis.

Compliance With Separate

and Secure Provisions

Army officials stated that the barracks at Fort Leonard Wood are in

compliance with the requirement for separate and secure housing for

males and females. In barracks that house both males and females, males

normally occupy the second and third floors and females occupy the first

floor. Each floor contains sleeping and latrine areas and is separated by

permanent walls from other floors. Separate entrances are used for the

male and female areas and a security watch is maintained on each floor

when recruits are in the sleeping areas. In addition, locked doors

separating male and female areas are alarmed and centrally monitored 

24 hours a day.

Page 9 GAO/NSIAD-99-75 Military Housing
Appendix I 

Separate Barracks in the Army

During our visit to Fort Leonard Wood in January 1999, we toured three

barracks. These barracks provided separate and secure sleeping and

latrine areas for males and females.

Separate Barracks at

Fort Jackson

Fort Jackson has 16 recruit barracks with a total housing capacity of 9,320

recruits. Six of these barracks are of the Army’s “starship” design each

with a housing capacity of 1,100 recruits.3

 Ten barracks are the older

three-story design, with a housing capacity of 272 recruits each. Males and

females in starship barracks are assigned to separate bays of the buildings,

and males and females in the older three-story barracks are assigned

either to separate floors or to separate areas on the same floor of the

buildings.

During fiscal year 1998, the peak recruit population at Fort Jackson

numbered 7,047, consisting of 4,580 males and 2,467 females. On the basis

of this peak population and the existing barracks inventory, our analysis

showed that Fort Jackson could provide housing for males and females in

separate buildings with no additional barracks construction costs. Similar

to Fort Leonard Wood, assigning male and female recruits to separate

barracks would no longer allow for all members of a training company to

be housed in the same barracks although members of the same company

could be assigned to a separate floor or area in the barracks.

On the basis of the Army’s projected increase in its annual recruit training

load over the next 5 years, we estimated that Fort Jackson’s fiscal 

year 2003 peak recruit training population would number 8,715, consisting

of 5,429 males and 3,286 females. On the basis of this peak population and

the existing barracks inventory, our analysis showed that Fort Jackson

could provide housing for males and females in separate buildings with no

additional barracks construction costs. Appendix V contains additional

details of our analysis.

Compliance With Separate

and Secure Provisions

Army officials stated that the barracks at Fort Jackson require some

modifications to be in complete compliance with the recruit housing

provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999.

In some of the older barracks at Fort Jackson, males and females were

assigned to separate areas on the same floors. The areas have separate

entrances and provide separate sleeping and latrine areas. However, a

3

A starship-designed barracks normally has three stories and five separate wings. The first floor is used

for operations and training, and the second and third floors are used for recruit housing.

Page 10 GAO/NSIAD-99-75 Military Housing
Appendix I 

Separate Barracks in the Army

temporary wall separates the male and female areas. The wall is designed

so that it can be knocked down in an emergency to provide an alternative

exit from the area. If the wall is knocked down, an alarm sounds. Army

officials stated that the temporary walls will be replaced with permanent

walls with metal doors. Each door will have a concealed magnetic switch

wired to an alarm monitored 24 hours a day. The Army estimated that the

modifications would cost about $314,000 and would be completed by

March 30, 1999. To provide increased security, the Army also planned

modifications in the starship barracks, where males and females are

assigned to separate bays each containing sleeping and latrine areas. Each

bay has an entry door and a fire escape door. A watch is posted at the

entry door when recruits occupy the bay, and the fire escape door is kept

locked to the outside. Army officials stated that they plan to install

monitored security alarms on each entry door. The estimated cost for the

alarms was about $300,000, and the work was expected to be completed

by June 7, 1999.

During our visit to Fort Jackson in January 1999, we toured two barracks:

one of the starship design and one of the older design. The barracks

provided separate and secure sleeping and latrine areas for males and

females. However, as discussed above, an alarmed temporary wall

separated the male and female areas in the older barracks.

Separate Barracks at

Fort Sill

Fort Sill has five recruit barracks with a total housing capacity of 5,500

recruits. Each of these barracks is of the newer starship design with a

housing capacity of 1,100 recruits. Gender-integrated basic training at Fort

Sill is scheduled to start in May 1999.

During fiscal year 1998, the peak recruit population at Fort Sill numbered

3,460 males. On the basis of the Army’s projected increase in its annual

recruit training load, we estimated that Fort Sill’s fiscal year 2003 peak

male recruit training population would number 4,101. The Army estimated

that Fort Sill’s peak female recruit population over the next 5 years would

number 1,023, providing a total peak population of 5,124 recruits. On the

basis of these estimated numbers and the existing barracks inventory, our

analysis showed that Fort Sill could provide housing for males and females

in separate buildings with no additional barracks construction costs.

Appendix V contains additional details of our analysis.

Army officials stated that Fort Sill’s barracks are designed so that male

and female recruits can be housed in compliance with the separate and

Page 11 GAO/NSIAD-99-75 Military Housing
Appendix I 

Separate Barracks in the Army

secure recruit housing provisions of the National Defense Authorization

Act for Fiscal Year 1999. We did not visit Fort Sill during our review.

Army Estimates of

Additional Barracks

Costs

The Army previously estimated that $271 million would be required to

provide housing for male and female recruits in separate buildings at Forts

Leonard Wood, Jackson, and Sill. This estimate included construction of

five new and modification of two existing starship design barracks

complexes. In preparing the estimate, the Army assumed that unit integrity

would be maintained in barracks assignments and that only one training

company would be housed in a barracks or barracks wing. Under this

assumption, significant new barracks construction would be required

because most barracks space vacated when females moved out would

remain vacant, requiring new barracks to be built to house the females. To

illustrate, consider a single recruit training company that occupies a

three-story barracks, with females assigned to the first floor and males

assigned to the second and third floors. Under the Army’s assumption, if

the females moved out, spaces on the first floor would not be reassigned

to male trainees from another company. With no consolidation of male

recruits into fewer barracks, females would have no barracks to move to,

requiring construction of new barracks to house nearly the entire female

recruit population.

Maintaining unit integrity is an important element of the Army’s training

doctrine, and we believe that different training companies could share a

barracks without sacrificing unit integrity by occupying separate floors or

areas. Such sharing already occurs in the newer starship design recruit

barracks. Further, assuming continuation of gender-integrated training, all

recruits in a training company would not be housed in the same barracks if

male and females recruits were required to be housed in separate

buildings. We believe that effective leadership and management oversight

could overcome problems in sharing barracks space and that the added

cost of new construction could thereby be avoided. Our estimates, as

discussed above, assumed that recruit barracks would be shared by more

than one training company, although each company could be provided a

separate floor for housing its members.

Army Concerns About

Separate Barracks

Army officials stated that they opposed housing male and female recruits

in separate barracks. According to the officials, gender-integrated training

is important to the Army in order to train recruits in a fashion mirroring

the way they will operate and fight in their operational units, and this

Page 12 GAO/NSIAD-99-75 Military Housing
Appendix I 

Separate Barracks in the Army

training can be conducted most effectively and efficiently when male and

female recruits are assigned to separate areas of the same barracks. In

their opinion, keeping male and female recruits in the same barracks

enhances unit integrity and command and control of the training units.

Army officials also stated that the current recruit housing practices

provide separate and secure housing for males and females and that little,

if any, additional security would be achieved if males and females were

housed in separate buildings. The officials also stated that placing males

and females in separate barracks would (1) require an increase in the

number of enlisted female supervisors needed to manage the buildings and

(2) reduce training effectiveness because of the additional coordination

required and the time lost to provide for travel between barracks

whenever males and females attended the same training event.

Page 13 GAO/NSIAD-99-75 Military Housing
Appendix II 

Separate Barracks in the Navy

The Navy’s sole installation for conducting recruit basic training is the

Navy Recruit Training Command at Great Lakes, Illinois. The Navy has no

plans to conduct basic training at any other location. Recruit basic training

at Great Lakes is gender-integrated and housing for males and females is

provided on separate floors of the same barracks.

Costs of Separate

Barracks

Great Lakes operates its barracks under a waiver from the Department of

Defense (DOD) recruit barracks standard, which allows each occupant 

72 net square feet of living area. Under the waiver, Great Lakes provides

each barracks occupant with 50 net square feet of living area. This

provides Great Lakes with a maximum capacity of 16,168 recruits in 15

barracks. Each barracks has three floors, and each floor has four separate

sections, called compartments, for a total of 12 compartments. Each

compartment includes sleeping and latrine areas and normally houses a

training unit, called a division, consisting of 88 to 94 recruits. Eight

compartments of one barracks are used to house recruits removed from

the normal training sequence for medical reasons or for remedial training

needs.

During fiscal year 1998, the peak recruit population at Great Lakes

numbered 14,515, consisting of 11,718 males and 2,797 females. With this

peak training population and the existing barracks inventory, Great Lakes

could provide housing for males and females in separate buildings with no

additional barracks construction. This assumes that Great Lakes continues

to operate under the waiver allowing 50 net square feet of living area for

each recruit.

The Navy forecasts an increase in its recruit training load over the next 

5 years. Between fiscal year 1999 and 2003, the Navy forecasts a peak

recruit training population of 17,217 recruits, consisting of 14,634 males

and 2,583 females. The Navy was considering options for meeting the

expected increase in recruit housing requirements. Although plans have

not been finalized, Great Lakes officials stated that one additional

barracks with three floors and 12 compartments would be needed,

providing that males and females continued to occupy separate floors of

the same barracks. Using standard DOD estimating methods and allowing

72 net square feet of living area for each recruit, we estimated that this

new barracks, with a maximum capacity of 1,128 recruits, would cost

about $32 million in fiscal year 2000 dollars.

Page 14 GAO/NSIAD-99-75 Military Housing
Appendix II 

Separate Barracks in the Navy

We estimated that if males and females were housed in separate buildings,

the same amount of additional housing, 1,128 spaces in 12 compartments,

would be required to meet the projected peak recruit populations for

males and females. However, instead of one building, two barracks would

be required—one with 752 spaces in eight compartments and one with 376

spaces in four compartments. Assuming that the Navy would construct an

eight-compartment barracks and a four-compartment barracks, the cost of

the two barracks would be about the same as the cost to meet the

increased training population with males and females in the same

barracks—$32 million. Thus, we concluded that no additional construction

costs would be required if males and females were housed in separate

barracks. Appendix V contains additional details of our analysis.

Officials at Great Lakes stated that they would prefer that any new

barracks constructed at Great Lakes be similar to the existing

12-compartment barracks. They stated that, instead of an

eight-compartment and a four-compartment barracks, two

12-compartment barracks would be needed to meet the projected peak

recruit populations if males and females were housed separately. The

officials stated that although this approach could result in excess barracks

capacity, recruit population projections are uncertain and some housing

flexibility should be included in any building plans. Constructing an

additional barracks would require another $32 million.

Navy Concerns About

Separate Barracks

Navy officials at Great Lakes stated that they opposed housing male and

female recruits in separate barracks. They stated that current practices

provide separate and secure housing for males and females and that little,

if any, additional security would be gained if males and females were in

separate buildings. The officials also stated that placing females in

separate barracks would require an increase in the number of enlisted

female supervisors needed to manage the buildings. According to the

officials, this would present a problem because the Navy already has a

shortage of females in this skill area.

Compliance With

Separate and Secure

Provisions

Navy officials stated that the barracks at Great Lakes are in compliance

with the recruit housing provisions of the National Defense Authorization

Act for Fiscal Year 1999. In barracks that house both males and females,

males occupy the first and second floors and females occupy the third

floor. Each of the four compartments on each floor contains sleeping and

latrine areas and is separated by permanent walls from other

Page 15 GAO/NSIAD-99-75 Military Housing
Appendix II 

Separate Barracks in the Navy

compartments. Each compartment has three entrances. The front and rear

entrances are kept locked and only training supervisors have keys. The

third entrance is an emergency exit in the latrine area. This entrance is

locked to the outside and is centrally monitored with an alarm system.

Also, a security watch monitors access to each compartment 24 hours a

day, and each barracks has a security watch at the main entrance to the

building on the first floor 24 hours a day.

During our visit to Great Lakes in January 1999, we toured one barracks.

The barracks provided separate and secure sleeping and latrine areas for

males and females.

Page 16 GAO/NSIAD-99-75 Military Housing
Appendix III 

Separate Barracks in the Air Force

The Air Force’s sole installation for conducting recruit basic training is

Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas. The Air Force has no

plans to conduct basic training at any other location. Recruit basic training

at Lackland is gender-integrated and housing for males and females is

provided in separate, discrete areas of the same barracks.

Costs of Separate

Barracks

Lackland has seven similar, three-story barracks. Each building provides

recruit housing on the second and third floors. Each floor includes 

10 separate dormitories, and each dormitory contains sleeping and latrine

areas for one training unit, called a flight. Although the standard size of a

training unit is 48 trainees, 50 to 60 trainees are often assigned to each

unit. Using 50 trainees as a typical unit size, each barracks at Lackland has

a capacity of 1,000 trainees and Lackland’s total recruit capacity numbers

7,000.

During fiscal year 1998, the peak recruit population at Lackland numbered

5,684, consisting of 4,178 males and 1,506 females. Air Force officials

projected that the recruit training load at Lackland would remain constant

over the next 5 years. Therefore, no significant change in the peak number

of male and female recruits was expected.

With the existing barracks inventory and on the basis of the fiscal 

year 1998 and projected peak male and female recruit populations, our

analysis showed that Lackland could provide housing for males and

females in separate buildings with no additional barracks construction

costs. Air Force officials said that while our analysis is technically correct,

it assumed that all barracks would be used for housing recruits. As such,

the analysis did not consider that the Air Force plans to keep one barracks

closed at any given time to provide for renovations. If all barracks were

used for housing, the officials said the planned renovations would have to

be terminated and there would also be some increase in costs to operate

and maintain the additional building. The Air Force estimated that about

$1.4 million would be required to initially open the additional building and

that $1.3 million would be required annually to operate and maintain the

building. Because Lackland’s housing capacity exceeds peak recruit

requirements by over 1,300 spaces, we believe that, as an alternative to

halting planned renovations, the Air Force could perform the renovation

work in phases by closing sections of a barracks instead of an entire

barracks at a time. Appendix V contains additional details of our analysis.

Page 17 GAO/NSIAD-99-75 Military Housing
Appendix III 

Separate Barracks in the Air Force

Air Force Concerns

About Separate

Barracks

Air Force officials stated that they oppose housing males and females in

separate barracks during recruit basic training. First, they noted that

because male and female recruits are already assigned to physically

separate and secure areas, little, if any, additional security would be

achieved if males and females were in separate buildings. Second, they

stated that assigning females to separate buildings would increase

requirements for female training supervisors and thereby increase training

costs. Third, they noted that Lackland’s barracks are not all located in the

same area—a distance of nearly a mile separates some of the buildings.

The separation is not currently a problem because males and females that

train together are housed in the same building. However, if housed in

separate buildings, travel time would be required whenever males and

females attended the same training event. The officials estimated that up

to 3 hours a day could be spent in needless travel between barracks and

gender-integrated training events, making it extremely difficult to continue

gender-integrated training. Finally, the officials stated that

gender-integrated training is essential to the Air Force and that segregating

males and females into separate barracks would adversely affect

gender-integrated training effectiveness and in the long run degrade

operational unit readiness.

Compliance With

Separate and Secure

Provisions

Air Force officials stated that the barracks at Lackland are in compliance

with the recruit housing provisions of the National Defense Authorization

Act for Fiscal Year 1999. Male and female recruits are housed separately in

discrete dormitories, each of which contains sleeping and latrine areas.

Each dormitory has a separate entrance, and access is controlled by a

watch posted at the door. The main entrance to each barracks also has a

security watch 24 hours a day and all entryways and fire exits are

monitored by surveillance cameras.

Air Force officials stated that one modification is planned for Lackland’s

barracks to increase security. Currently, a door connects the dormitories

in each barracks. The doors are solid wood, 2 inches thick, and are

alarmed and kept locked at all times. Keys to the doors are controlled by

training supervisors. The doors were included in the original construction

of the barracks because the buildings were designed for use as emergency

shelters, if needed. To obtain increased security, Lackland plans to remove

the doors and have the passageways sealed with cinder block walls. This

work will be done during planned renovations of the barracks, and all

work is expected to be completed by March 2001. The Air Force estimated

that this work will cost about $87,500.

Page 18 GAO/NSIAD-99-75 Military Housing
Appendix III 

Separate Barracks in the Air Force

During our visit to Lackland in January 1999, we toured one barracks. The

barracks provided separate and secure sleeping and latrine areas for males

and females.

Page 19 GAO/NSIAD-99-75 Military Housing
Appendix IV 

Separate Barracks in the Marine Corps

The Marine Corps conducts recruit basic training for males and females at

only one installation—the Marine Corps Recruit Depot, Parris Island,

South Carolina. The Marine Corps has no plans to conduct basic training

for females at any other location. Recruit basic training at Parris Island is

gender separate and housing for male and female recruits is primarily

provided in separate barracks.

Costs of Separate

Barracks

Parris Island has 25 barracks with a total housing capacity for 8,324

recruits. Normally, 18 buildings with a capacity of 6,772 trainees are

available for male recruits, and 6 buildings with a capacity of 1,152

trainees are available for female recruits. One building is used for male

and female recruits assigned to the Support Battalion for medical

rehabilitation, physical conditioning, or remedial swim training. This

building has eight separate bays, and females are assigned to one of these

bays.

During fiscal year 1998, the peak recruit population at Parris Island

numbered 6,505, consisting of 5,708 males and 797 females. Marine Corps

officials projected that the recruit training load at Parris Island would

remain constant over the next 5 years. Therefore, no significant change in

the peak number of male and female recruits was expected.

With one exception, the Marine Corps already houses male and female

recruits in separate barracks. If required, Parris Island has sufficient

barracks capacity to move the females in the one shared barracks to a

separate building. Thus, Parris Island would need no additional barracks

construction if the services were required to house males and females in

separate buildings.

Marine Corps

Comments About

Separate Barracks

The Marine Corps does not conduct gender-integrated basic training

similar to the other services. Marine Corps officials stated that they

support separate barracks for males and females during Marine Corps

recruit basic training.

Compliance With

Separate and Secure

Provisions

Marine Corps officials stated that Parris Island is in compliance with the

Fiscal Year 1999 National Defense Authorization Act’s requirements for

separate and secure housing for males and females. Only 1 of the 25

barracks at Parris Island houses both males and females. In this building,

males and females are assigned to separate bays with separate entrances

and separate sleeping and latrine areas. The bays are separated by

Page 20 GAO/NSIAD-99-75 Military Housing
Appendix IV 

Separate Barracks in the Marine Corps

permanent walls, and the female bay has alarmed doors and a security

watch posted when occupied. During our visit to Parris Island in

January 1999, we toured five barracks, including the barracks that houses

males and females. The barracks provided separate and secure sleeping

and latrine areas for males and females.

Page 21 GAO/NSIAD-99-75 Military Housing
Appendix V 

Comparison of Peak Recruit Barracks

Requirements and Costs for Fiscal Year 2003

In our analysis of each installation conducting gender-integrated training,

we determined the costs of providing housing for male and female recruits

in the same barracks and in separate barracks. The analysis matched the

peak number of barracks spaces required over the next 5 years with the

number of barracks spaces available. If additional spaces would be needed

to meet housing needs, we estimated the costs to construct the barracks.

As shown in the following table, the analysis showed that the amount of

new construction and the associated costs would be the same whether

male and female recruits are housed in the same or in separate barracks.

Table V:1 Comparison of Barracks Requirements and Costs

Males and females in separate barracks

Dollars in millions

Installation Barracks space

Males and

females in the

same barracks Males Females Total

Fort Leonard Wood Required 9,292 6,725 2,567 9,292

Available 8,700 6,090 2,610 8,700

Additional needed 592 635 0 635

GAO estimated cost $22 $22 $0 $22

Fort Jackson Required 8,715 5,429 3,286 8,715

Available 9,320 6,020 3,300 9,320

Additional needed 0 0 0 0

GAO estimated cost $0 $0 $0 $0

Fort Sill Required 5,124 4,101 1,023 5,124

Available 5,500 4,400 1,100 5,500

Additional needed 0 0 0 0

GAO estimated cost $0 $0 $0 $0

Great Lakes Naval

Training Commanda

Required 17,217 14,634 2,583 17,217

Available 16,168 13,912 2,256 16,168

Additional needed 1,049 722 327 1,049

GAO estimated cost $32 $21 $11 $32

Lackland Air Force

Base

Required 5,684 4,178 1,506 5,684

Available 7,000 5,000 2,000 7,000

Additional needed 0 0 0 0

GAO estimated cost $0 $0 $0 $0

Note: The Marine Corps is not included in the table because male and female recruits are already

in separate barracks.

aGreat Lakes data is fiscal year 2002, its projected peak year.

Page 22 GAO/NSIAD-99-75 Military Housing
Appendix VI 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

As directed by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year

1999, we determined each military service’s costs if required to provide

housing for male and female recruits during basic training in separate

structures. We also (1) obtained the services’ views on housing male and

female recruits in separate barracks and (2) reviewed the services’

compliance with the act’s requirement to provide separate and secure

areas for male and female recruits if they are housed in the same barracks.

We performed work at the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the

headquarters of each military service. We also visited each military

installation, except Fort McClellan, that conducts recruit basic training

concurrently for males and females—Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri; Fort

Jackson, South Carolina; Great Lakes Naval Recruit Training Command,

Illinois; Lackland Air Force Base, Texas; and Marine Corps Recruit Depot,

Parris Island, South Carolina. We did not visit Fort McClellan because the

Army plans to transfer its gender-integrated basic training function to Fort

Leonard Wood during the summer of 1999. We also did not visit Fort Sill,

which is scheduled to begin gender-integrated training in 1999, but we did

obtain and review applicable information from the installation. For the

purposes of this report, we included in basic training the Army’s One

Station Unit Training. This training combines basic training with advanced

individual training into one continuous course.

To determine the costs of providing housing for male and female recruits

in separate buildings, we interviewed responsible agency personnel and

reviewed information from each service pertaining to (1) male and female

peak recruit training populations for fiscal year 1998 and projected male

and female peak recruit populations for fiscal years 1999-2003; (2) existing

and planned recruit barracks inventories, capacities, and assignment

practices; and (3) military construction costs for recruit barracks. At each

installation visited, we discussed with local officials how the recruit

training population could be matched with the existing barracks inventory

to provide separate housing for males and females and whether additional

barracks construction would be required. If additional barracks were

required, we independently estimated construction costs using DOD’s

standard methods for estimating costs of military construction projects.1

1

We estimated barracks construction costs on the basis of the square footage of each required

barracks. First, to determine square footage, we multiplied our estimate of the number of required

additional barracks spaces by the DOD maximum gross building square feet allowed for each recruit

barracks space. Then, to determine construction costs, we multiplied the square footage by the DOD

standard recruit barracks construction cost per square foot for fiscal year 2000. Finally, using DOD and

service data, we adjusted this amount for geographic area cost differences and added cost allowances

for support facilities; contingencies; and supervision, inspections, and overhead.

Page 23 GAO/NSIAD-99-75 Military Housing
Appendix VI 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

To obtain the services’ views on housing male and female recruits in

separate barracks and to review the services’ compliance with the act’s

provisions requiring separate and secure housing, we discussed the issues

with officials at service headquarters and at the installations conducting

basic training concurrently for males and females. Also, during our visits

to the basic training installations, we toured barracks to observe how the

provisions were being met. If compliance had not been achieved, we

obtained information concerning the installation’s plans for meeting the

provisions.

We conducted our review between December 1998 and February 1999 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Page 24 GAO/NSIAD-99-75 Military Housing
Appendix VII 

Major Contributors to This Report

National Security and

International Affairs

Division, Washington,

D.C.

Carol Schuster, Associate Director

William Solis, Assistant Director

Norfolk Field Office Gary Phillips, Evaluator in Charge

James Ellis, Senior Evaluator

Sharon Reid, Senior Evaluator

(703270) Page 25 GAO/NSIAD-99-75 Military Housing
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100