United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to the Honorable

Pat Roberts, U.S. Senate

March 1999 MILITARY HOUSING

Status of the Services’

Implementation of the

Current Barracks

Design Standard

GAO/NSIAD-99-52

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

National Security and

International Affairs Division

B-281734 

March 24, 1999

The Honorable Pat Roberts

United States Senate

Dear Senator Roberts:

The Department of Defense (DOD) expects most single junior enlisted

servicemembers to live on base in furnished living quarters commonly

referred to as barracks. In November 1995, DOD adopted a new barracks

construction standard, referred to as the 1+1 design standard, that called

for more space and increased privacy in new barracks for servicemembers

permanently assigned to an installation. The new standard, which does not

apply to barracks for members in basic recruit or initial skill training,

provides each junior enlisted member with a private sleeping room and a

kitchenette and bath shared by one other member. Under certain

circumstances,1

 the service secretaries may approve waivers from the 1+1

standard to allow the use of alternative barracks designs. Appendix I

shows typical floor plan diagrams for the 1+1 and two alternative barracks

designs. Originally, the services estimated that about $10 billion would be

spent implementing the new standard over a 20-year period.

Because of the importance of the military’s barracks program and the

significant costs involved in upgrading barracks to meet the new standard,

you requested that we review DOD’s barracks program in the United States.

Specifically, we determined (1) the status of the services’ implementation

of the 1+1 barracks design standard; (2) DOD’s rationale for adopting the

standard; (3) the costs of alternatives to the 1+1 standard; and (4) service

views of the impact of the standard from a team-building, individual

isolation, or similar perspective.

Results in Brief Except for the Marine Corps, the services embraced the 1+1 barracks

design standard and in fiscal year 1996 began building new and renovating

older barracks to conform to the new standard. In fiscal years 1996-99,

about $1.5 billion in funding was approved for 124 military construction

projects designed to provide over 29,000 barracks spaces meeting the 1+1

design standard. Also, to provide increased privacy in existing barracks

over a phased time period, the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force plan to

1

DOD policy allows the standard to be waived if (1) unique mission requirements or operational

commitments are better served by congregate living or (2) the collective quality of life for members

would be more enhanced by constructing to a lesser standard but providing new quarters to a larger

number of members.

Page 1 GAO/NSIAD-99-52 Military Housing
B-281734 

assign one member to existing rooms designed for two members and two

members to existing rooms designed for three members. When required,

the barracks capacity lost through this practice will be regained through

construction of new 1+1 barracks. In lieu of the 1+1 design, the Marine

Corps is building new barracks with two-person sleeping rooms for junior

Marines.

DOD justified the adoption of the 1+1 standard primarily as an investment

in quality of life aimed at improving military readiness and retention.

Although barracks improvements do enhance individuals’ quality of life, to

what degree is unknown because quality of life is inherently difficult to

quantify. DOD has not developed any direct, quantitative evidence showing

that barracks improvements, as distinct from other factors, result in

improved readiness and retention. Even with existing barracks conditions,

the services have achieved their first-term retention goals for the past

3 fiscal years with only one exception. In fiscal year 1998, the Air Force

missed its first-term retention goal by 1 percentage point. Information

collected from members that do not reenlist has shown that many factors

other than housing, such as pay and promotion opportunities, are usually

cited as the reasons for leaving the military.

Our comparison of barracks construction costs associated with alternative

design standards showed significant differences in the amount of funds

that would be required over and above what has already been funded. For

example, fully implementing the 1+1 standard (2 bedrooms, 1 bath,

kitchenette, 2 persons) in all services, including the Marine Corps, would

cost an additional $13.7 billion. Fully implementing the Marine Corps’ 2+0

standard (1 bedroom, 1 bath, 2 persons) in all services would cost an

additional $3.1 billion. Finally, fully implementing the barracks standard

used prior to November 1995, the 2+2 standard (2 bedrooms, 1 bath, 4

persons), would cost an additional $1.7 billion. DOD officials believe that

only the 1+1 standard meets their concerns for improving quality of life

and that changing standards at this point would result in inequities in the

barracks inventory and could be perceived by members as a promise not

kept.

Only the Marine Corps voiced concerns over the 1+1 design standard.

Because of the isolation provided in private rooms, the Marine Corps

believes the 1+1 standard does not allow for the unit cohesion and team

building needed to reinforce Marine Corps values and develop a stronger

bond among junior Marines. For this reason, the Marine Corps obtained a

permanent waiver from the Secretary of the Navy to use a different

Page 2 GAO/NSIAD-99-52 Military Housing
B-281734 

barracks design standard—one sleeping room and bath shared by two

junior Marines. The other services believe that the 1+1 standard does not

include these negative aspects because the standard applies only to

permanent party personnel, not to recruits or initial trainees; members of

the same unit normally are assigned to the same barracks or area so that

unit integrity is maintained; and barracks occupants continue to have

adequate interaction with other occupants.

Background About 374,000 single, active-duty enlisted servicemembers are housed in

the United States. Of this number, about 212,000 are permanently assigned

to installations and live in barracks, about 96,000 receive a housing

allowance and live off base in civilian communities near military

installations, about 36,000 live on Navy ships, and about 30,000 live in

barracks while in recruit or other short-term training. Most permanently

assigned junior members living in barracks share a sleeping room and bath

with one or two others. In many older barracks, everyone living on a hall

or floor shares a communal bathroom, or central latrine.

The Secretary of Defense is required to establish uniform barracks

construction standards that define size limitations for newly constructed

permanent barracks.2

 Over the years, barracks construction standards

have changed to provide for increased space and privacy. Prior to the

1970s, most permanent party barracks consisted of large, open-bay rooms

with central latrines shared by many members. To meet the needs of the

all-volunteer force, DOD adopted a new barracks standard in 1972. This

standard provided a 270-square-foot room for three junior members that

also shared a bath. Citing the need to provide more space for all pay

grades, DOD adopted a new construction standard in 1983. This standard,

known as the 2+2 design, consisted of a module with two,

180-net-square-foot sleeping rooms and a shared bath. With this design,

two junior enlisted members normally would occupy each sleeping room,

and four members would share a bath.

The current 1+1 design standard provides a barracks module consisting of

two private sleeping rooms, each with 118 net square feet, a bath, and a

kitchenette. Two junior enlisted members in pay grades E-1 through E-4

are assigned to each module with each member having a private sleeping

room. Normally, enlisted members in pay grades E-5 and above are

2

This requirement is contained in 10 U.S.C. 2856.

Page 3 GAO/NSIAD-99-52 Military Housing
B-281734 

assigned the entire module, using one sleeping room as a living room.3

Citing concerns over unit cohesion and team building, the Marine Corps

obtained a permanent waiver from the Secretary of the Navy from using

the 1+1 design standard in its new barracks construction. The Marine

Corps prefers to use a barracks standard known as the 2+0 design, which

provides a 180-net-square-foot room with a bath. Normally, either two

junior Marines in pay grades E-1 through E-3 or one Marine in pay grade

E-4 or E-5 are assigned to each room.

Because the design standards apply to the construction of new barracks,

adequacy of the existing barracks for housing members may not

necessarily change. DOD separately establishes minimum standards of

acceptable space and privacy for members assigned to existing barracks.

For example, the current minimum assignment standard for permanent

party personnel in pay grades E-1 through E-4 is 90 square feet of net living

area per person, not more than four persons to a room, and a central

latrine. When this assignment standard cannot be met or when space is not

available, installation commanders can authorize single members to live

off base and receive a housing allowance. Regardless of the availability of

adequate barracks space, senior personnel in pay grades E-7 through E-9

may elect to live off base and receive a housing allowance.

Status of the 1+1

Barracks Program

With the exception of the Marine Corps, the services have embraced the

1+1 design standard and began building new and renovating older

barracks in accordance with the standard in fiscal year 1996. As shown in

table 1, through fiscal year 1999, about $1.5 billion in funding was

approved for 124 barracks projects designed to provide over 29,000

barracks spaces meeting the 1+1 design standard.

3

The Air Force does not program barracks space for members in pay grades E-5 and above. If space is

available, these members may be assigned to the barracks under the assignment standards applicable

to members in pay grades E-1 through E-4.

Page 4 GAO/NSIAD-99-52 Military Housing
B-281734 

Table 1: 1+1 Barracks Projects

Approved Through Fiscal Year 1999 Dollars in millions

Service

Number of

projects

Number of

spacesa Costa

Army 44 12,500 $680

Navy 25 7,100 336

Air Force 51 6,900 425

Marine Corps 4b 2,700 106

Total 124 29,200 $1,547

aFor projects not yet under construction, the data reflects the spaces and costs in the project

justifications. For projects under construction or completed, the data reflects the services’

estimates of actual spaces and costs at the time of our review.

bAlthough the Marine Corps prefers the 2+0 design, base realignment and closure decisions

resulted in approval and direct funding of four barracks projects for the Marines that used the

DOD 1+1 design standard.

Except for the Marine Corps, each service has adopted a plan for

improving its barracks and implementing the 1+1 standard. According to

service officials, the plans generally call for (1) eliminating barracks with

central latrines primarily through construction of new 1+1 barracks,

(2) providing members with increased privacy and approximating the 1+1

standard in existing barracks by assigning one member to rooms originally

designed for two members or two persons to rooms originally designed for

three persons,4

 (3) constructing new 1+1 barracks to meet existing

barracks shortages and to regain capacity lost when fewer members are

assigned to existing rooms, and (4) replacing existing barracks at the end

of their economic life with new 1+1 barracks. The services, as discussed

below, estimated that an additional $7.4 billion would be required to

implement their plans and approximate the 1+1 standard. The Marine

Corps’ plan is similar to the other services’ plans except that it calls for

implementation of the 2+0 barracks design standard in lieu of the 1+1

design.

In its plan, the Army estimated that about $3 billion would be required

through fiscal year 2008 to approximate the 1+1 standard for about 84,000

servicemembers in the United States in pay grades E-1 through E-6. When

the Army meets this goal, about 38 percent of the Army’s barracks spaces

will meet all requirements of the 1+1 standard. The balance of the spaces

will consist of existing (1) private sleeping rooms that do not meet all

requirements of the 1+1 standard and (2) multiperson rooms that have

been downloaded. The Army’s barracks strategy also provides for

4

This practice is referred to as downloading.

Page 5 GAO/NSIAD-99-52 Military Housing
B-281734 

improving the entire barracks community. As such, many Army barracks

construction projects include construction of new company operations

buildings, battalion and brigade headquarters buildings, soldier community

buildings, and dining facilities. The Army is also developing a barracks

master plan that will include an installation-by-installation assessment of

barracks conditions and detailed plans for replacement or renovation to

meet requirements of the 1+1 design standard. The master plan is to be

completed by September 1999. The Army has approved no waivers to the

1+1 standard for barracks projects in the United States.

In 1997, the Air Force completed a comprehensive barracks master plan

that defines the Air Force’s long-range barracks investment strategy and

lays out a road map for implementing the 1+1 standard. The Air Force’s

strategy calls for providing private sleeping rooms for permanent party

servicemembers in pay grades E-1 through E-4 by downloading existing

2+2 rooms and constructing new 1+1 rooms to regain the lost capacity.

The strategy also calls for paying housing allowances for single members

in pay grades E-5 and above to live off base. The Air Force estimated that

about $750 million would be required through fiscal year 2009 to

approximate the 1+1 standard for about 48,000 members in the United

States in pay grades E-1 through E-4. The Air Force has approved no

waivers to the 1+1 standard for barracks projects in the United States.

The Navy estimated that about $2.9 billion would be required through

fiscal year 2013 to approximate the 1+1 design standard worldwide. The

Navy’s strategy calls for (1) providing barracks space for about 36,000

permanent party, shore-based single servicemembers in pay grades E-1

through E-4 in the United States; (2) paying housing allowances to most

members in pay grades E-5 and above to live off base; and (3) continuing

to house about 36,000 single members in pay grades E-1 through E-4

assigned to large ships, on the ships, rather than in barracks, even when

the ships are in their homeports. The Navy is developing a barracks master

plan that will include an installation-by-installation assessment of barracks

conditions and detailed plans for barracks replacement or renovation to

meet requirements of the 1+1 design standard. The master plan is

scheduled to be completed by April 1999.

The Navy has approved waivers from using the 1+1 design standard for

four projects in the United States, and one additional waiver request was

pending.5

 The waivers were granted because these installations could

5

The majority of the waivers included the expectation that the 1+1 standard would still be achieved by

fiscal year 2013.

Page 6 GAO/NSIAD-99-52 Military Housing
B-281734 

improve barracks conditions more quickly and for more members by

building the projects using a lower and less costly standard. In addition,

two of the projects were for barracks designed for Navy personnel

assigned to Marine Corps installations. In these cases, the waiver

justifications also stated that the barracks should use the Marine Corps

2+0 design standard to be compatible with other barracks at the

installations.

In July 1998, the Secretary of the Navy approved the Marine Corps’ request

for a permanent waiver to allow the use of the 2+0 barracks design

standard in lieu of the 1+1 design standard. The waiver request stated that

Marine Corps junior members in pay grades E-1 through E-3 would live in

two-person rooms and that private rooms would be provided for members

in pay grades E-4 and above. Through fiscal year 1999, about $205 million

was approved for 16 Marine Corps 2+0 barracks projects that will provide

about 5,900 barracks spaces. The Marine Corps’ strategy calls for

providing barracks space for permanent party single servicemembers in

pay grades E-1 through E-5 and paying housing allowances for most

members in pay grades E-6 and above to live off base. The Marine Corps

estimated that about $725 million would be required through fiscal

year 2022 to approximate the 2+0 standard worldwide. A Marine Corps

official stated that a barracks master plan similar to the other services

plans is under development.

DOD’s Justification

for Adopting the 1+1

Standard

DOD primarily justified the adoption of the 1+1 barracks design standard in

1995 as an investment in quality of life aimed at improving readiness,

retention, and motivation of a professional, all-volunteer armed force. In a

December 1995 report to the House and Senate Committees on

Appropriations,6 DOD stated that “savings in recruiting, training, and

productivity will offset the quality-of-life investment. To what degree is

impossible to say, but focusing only on the barracks cost would risk

missing those savings.” DOD further stated that the new standard addressed

the results of a 1992 triservice survey of barracks occupants at 12

installations. The survey showed that servicemembers were dissatisfied

with the privacy and living space offered with the previous design

standard and wanted larger rooms, private rooms, private baths, and more

6

Troop Housing: Establishment of Standard for Construction of New, Permanent Party Barracks,

Office of the Secretary of Defense, December 1995.

Page 7 GAO/NSIAD-99-52 Military Housing
B-281734 

storage space.7 Hence, DOD concluded that continuing to build more of the

same type of barracks would have been unwise.

According to DOD officials, adoption of the 1+1 standard also reflected an

attempt to treat single servicemembers in a more equitable manner

compared to married servicemembers who normally live in multiroom

houses. More equitable treatment of single members in housing was a

matter of concern expressed by the House Armed Services Committee in

1993.8

 To illustrate, married members in pay grades E-1 through E-4 living

on base normally are assigned to a house with at least 950 square feet, two

bedrooms, a full kitchen, a family room, and one or one and a half baths. If

available, housing with a separate bedroom for each dependent child is

provided. In comparison, single members in pay grades E-1 through E-4

living on base in barracks designed under the standard in place prior to

1995 would live in a 180-square-foot room shared with another member

and would share a bath with three other members.

We agree with DOD that the 1+1 design standard reduces the differences in

housing for married and single members. We also agree that improved

barracks enhance individual quality of life. However, to what extent is

unknown because quality of life is inherently difficult to quantify. Quality

of life is a complex issue reflected in a delicate mix of variables such as

balancing personal life and the demands of military service, adequate pay

and benefits, and many other factors. DOD officials stated that no

quantitative measures directly link a single quality-of-life element, such as

barracks quality, with readiness or retention. Without such data, there is

little evidence to support DOD’s assumption that improved barracks will

result in improved readiness and higher enlisted retention rates.

Even with existing barracks conditions, the services have met most

retention goals over the past 3 fiscal years. In particular, according to

service officials, the large majority of barracks occupants are serving in

their first term of enlistment, and except in one instance, the services have

achieved their first-term retention goals for fiscal years 1996-98. In the one

instance, the Air Force missed its first-term retention goal by 1 percentage

point in fiscal year 1998. Further, information collected from members that

do not reenlist has shown that factors other than housing, such as pay and

7

A May 1995 Air Force quality-of-life survey also reported that 88 percent of the single, enlisted

respondents stated that the factor that would most improve their quality of life was a private room.

8

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993, House Armed Services Committee Report

102-527.

Page 8 GAO/NSIAD-99-52 Military Housing
B-281734 

promotion opportunities, are usually cited as the reasons members leave

the military.

We also noted that the 1992 triservice barracks survey, cited as part of the

justification for the 1+1 standard, was somewhat limited in scope. The

survey began in October 1991 when the Air Force collected information

from four installations and was expanded in March and April 1992 to

include three Army, three Navy, and two Marine Corps installations.

Although the survey showed that about 2,200 Army, Navy, and Marine

Corps barracks occupants participated in the voluntary survey,

documentation was not clear on how many Air Force members

participated or how the survey participants were selected. The survey

included 96 questions, and participants were asked to respond to many

questions on a scale of “very satisfied” to “very dissatisfied” or “very

important” to “not at all important.”

The survey also included some interesting results that DOD has not usually

cited. For example, 84 percent of the participants reported that they

preferred to receive a housing allowance and live off base rather than live

in the barracks. The preference to live off base could continue regardless

of the type or quality of barracks provided and thereby result in members’

continued dissatisfaction with the barracks. Also, when participants were

asked, how satisfied or dissatisfied they were with their barracks or

dormitory room, 53 percent responded that they were dissatisfied

(34 percent) or very dissatisfied (19 percent). At the same time, only

46 percent responded to a similar question that they were dissatisfied or

very dissatisfied with living on the installation. Although these numbers

show that about half of the respondents were dissatisfied with the

barracks, the other half reported that they were not dissatisfied with their

housing. Finally, when asked, what one improvement in the barracks or

dormitory would most increase retention of enlisted personnel, the most

mentioned improvement, cited by 35 percent of the respondents, was

fewer rules and restrictions for barracks occupants and freedom from

command inspections. A private room was the second most mentioned

improvement, cited by 24 percent of the respondents.

Costs of Alternative

Barracks Designs

We compared the costs of constructing barracks using the 1+1 design

standard to the costs of constructing barracks using other design

standards, specifically the 2+0 design used by the Marine Corps and the

2+2 design that was the previous barracks design standard. The

comparison showed significant cost differences among the designs. For

Page 9 GAO/NSIAD-99-52 Military Housing
B-281734 

example, the estimated cost to construct a single barracks space using the

1+1 design standard for a member in pay grades E-1 through E-4 was

about $63,000. The comparable construction costs using the 2+0 design

standard was about $41,000. Using the 2+2 design standard, the

comparable cost was about $38,000 for each barracks space. The designs

have different costs primarily because of differences in each design’s

maximum building area per occupant. For example, the maximum gross

building area for each junior member occupant is 355, 229, and 213 square

feet for the 1+1, 2+0, and 2+2 designs, respectively.

Table 2 shows the cost per occupant for each of the designs. Costs are

higher for members in pay grades E-5 and above because barracks

assignment policies normally provide these members with double the

space provided to junior members.

Table 2: Barracks Construction Cost

Estimates for Each Occupant Pay gradesa 1+1 design 2+0 design 2+2 design

E-1 - E-4 $63,000 $41,000 $38,000

E-5 and above $126,000 $82,000 $76,000

Note: The estimates reflect fiscal year 2000 costs for institutional-style construction and include

adjustments for geographic area cost differences; support costs; contingencies; and supervision,

inspections, and overhead.

aFor the Marine Corps, the paygrade categories are E-1 through E-3 and E-4 and above.

We also estimated the total additional cost for the services to fully

implement each of the three design standards. Specifically, using the cost

estimates for each design and the services’ estimates of barracks

requirements and configuration after the completion of projects funded

through fiscal year 1999, we estimated the additional funds required to

provide all planned barracks occupants with spaces that comply with each

of the standards. Table 3 summarizes our estimates.

Page 10 GAO/NSIAD-99-52 Military Housing
B-281734 

Table 3: Estimated Additional Funds

Required to Fully Implement

Alternative Barracks Design Standards

Dollars in millions

Service

1+1 full

implementation

2+0 full

implementation

2+2 full

implementation

Army $4,927 $878 $490

Air Force 2,626 290 0

Navy 2,130 702 474

Marine Corps 4,024 1,245 710

Total $13,707 $3,115 $1,674

Note: Our cost estimates to fully implement the 1+1 standard differ from the services’ estimates

noted earlier because their estimates reflected an approximate 1+1 standard. With an

approximate 1+1 standard, many servicemembers occupy downloaded rooms that do not meet

all 1+1 requirements.

We included the Marine Corps in our calculations, even though its current

plan is to implement the 2+0 standard in lieu of the 1+1 standard. The total

additional cost to fully implement the 1+1 standard in the Army, the Navy,

and the Air Force and the 2+0 standard in the Marine Corps, as currently

planned, is about $10.9 billion. In comparison, if all services used the 2+0

design standard, they would need about $3.1 billion to fully implement the

standard—or about $7.8 billion less than the current plan; and if all

services used the 2+2 standard, they would need about $1.7 billion to fully

implement the standard—or about $9.2 billion less than the current plan.

Although DOD officials agreed that costs associated with the 1+1 design are

significantly higher, they stated that the less costly designs do not relieve

their concerns for improving quality of life. Army, Navy, and Air Force

officials stated that the reasons for initially adopting the 1+1 design—to

improve quality of life and provide more equity in housing for single and

married members—continue to be valid. In addition, they noted that a

considerable investment, about $1.5 billion, has already been made in

implementing the 1+1 standard and that changing the standard would

result in inequities in the barracks inventory. Further, the officials

expressed concern that abandoning the 1+1 design and its improvements

could be perceived by members as a promise not kept and consequently

have an adverse impact on morale.

Service Views of the

1+1 Design

Marine Corps officials stated that the higher cost of the 1+1 design was a

concern to them. For 2 years, the Marine Corps obtained a waiver allowing

use of the 2+0 design on the basis that they could improve barracks

conditions faster by using the less costly design. The Marine Corps also

Page 11 GAO/NSIAD-99-52 Military Housing
B-281734 

sees an additional drawback to the 1+1 standard. Specifically, because of

the increased isolation provided in private sleeping rooms, the Marine

Corps believes that the 1+1 standard does not allow for the unit cohesion

and team building needed to reinforce Corps values and develop a

stronger bond among junior Marines. It was for this reason that the Marine

Corps obtained a permanent waiver from using the 1+1 design for Marines

in pay grades E-1 through E-3.

Army, Navy, and Air Force officials stated that they do not see any

negative aspects to the 1+1 standard from an individual isolation or

team-building perspective. They stated that the standard is used only for

permanent party personnel, not for recruits or initial trainees; whenever

possible, members of the same unit are assigned to the same barracks or

area so that unit integrity is maintained; and barracks occupants continue

to have adequate interaction with other occupants. These officials also

noted that the Marine Corps’ first-term retention goals are significantly

lower than the goals of the other services. As a result, they believed that

the potential benefits from improved quality of life provided by private

sleeping rooms outweighed any potential drawbacks from increased

isolation in private rooms.

Conclusions Although the 1+1 barracks standard improves the quality of life for single

servicemembers and to some degree addresses housing differences

between single and married members, DOD has no quantifiable evidence

that barracks improvements result in improved readiness and retention.

Implementing the 2+0 or 2+2 design standard in lieu of the 1+1 standard

would be significantly less costly to the military; however, the less costly

designs do not alleviate DOD’s concerns about improving servicemembers’

quality of life. Whether the 1+1 standard has drawbacks from an individual

isolation or team-building standpoint appears to be a matter of military

judgment that varies depending on each service’s culture, mission, and

goals. Ultimately, the barracks design standard decision is a qualitative

policy decision.

Agency Comments

and Our Evaluation

In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD affirmed its

commitment to providing quality housing for single members stating that

improved quality of life is a critical component to attracting and retaining

high quality personnel. While recognizing our assessment that measuring

the impact of improved barracks on individual quality of life, retention,

and readiness is inherently difficult, DOD maintained that providing more

Page 12 GAO/NSIAD-99-52 Military Housing
B-281734 

privacy and amenities in the barracks is important in order to address

concerns raised by single servicemembers. DOD stated it has no precise

measures linking barracks improvements to retention and readiness

because (1) few 1+1 barracks have been completed, which limits the

availability of data for analysis, and (2) the quality of home life is just one

of many factors affecting individuals’ quality of life, and individuals’ quality

of life is just one of many factors affecting readiness.

DOD commented that in discussing the reasons that DOD adopted the 1+1

standard, we should have mentioned a May 1995 Air Force quality-of-life

survey. This survey reported that barracks occupants cited privacy as their

number one concern. We have added to our report a reference to the Air

Force survey. We had considered this survey during our review but did not

originally mention it because (1) its key barracks-related finding of privacy

was the same as the key finding from the 1992 triservice survey, which we

do discuss, and (2) DOD officials more frequently cited the 1992 triservice

survey results as documentation of servicemembers’ dissatisfaction with

their barracks.

DOD commented that although the 1992 triservice survey found that the

majority of the survey participants preferred to live off base, on base

housing is needed to maintain good order and discipline. Our point, as

stated in the report, is that the preference to live off base may continue

regardless of the type or quality of barracks that are provided.

Unfortunately, reliable, quantitative data is not available to show what

impact improved barracks will have on members’ perceptions of their

quality of life and ultimately on members’ decisions to stay in the military.

DOD questioned our analysis of costs that would be incurred if the Marine

Corps’ 2+0 barracks standard were adopted by all services. DOD stated that

we failed to consider the costs of additional baths that would be required

if existing 2+2 barracks were converted to 2+0 use. DOD’s contentions are

not accurate. In our analysis, we assumed that existing 2+2 barracks

would be downloaded by assigning only one member to each of the two

bedrooms that share a bath. With this configuration, more net square

footage would be provided to each member than required under the 2+0

standard and no additional baths would be required.

DOD commented that some of our cost estimates were misleading because

we did not consider the cost of modernizing and renovating existing

barracks if a barracks standard other than the 1+1 standard were adopted.

We disagree. Regardless of which barracks design standard is used,

Page 13 GAO/NSIAD-99-52 Military Housing
B-281734 

barracks wear out and eventually require repair, modernization, and

renovation. For this reason, our analysis considered only costs to fully

implement the three barracks design standards.

Finally, DOD commented that our analysis of costs for full implementation

of the 1+1 barracks design is not based on any DOD or service plan. As

such, DOD stated that our analysis failed to consider that the services plan

to replace existing barracks only after they reach the end of their useful

life. In describing the services’ plans, our report notes that new barracks

will be constructed, when required, to replace barracks at the end of their

economic life. We did not intend to suggest that existing barracks should

be abandoned and new 1+1 barracks should be immediately constructed.

Rather, our analysis is intended to estimate the costs for the Army, the Air

Force, and the Navy to fully implement the 1+1 standard over time, which

represents the current plans of these services.

DOD also provided some technical comments, which we have incorporated

as appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to Senator Robert C. Byrd, Senator

Carl Levin, Senator Ted Stevens, Senator John W. Warner, and to

Representative David R. Obey, Representative Ike Skelton, Representative

Floyd D. Spence, and Representative C.W. Bill Young, in their capacities as

Chair or Ranking Minority Member of Senate and House Committees. We

are also sending copies of this report to the Honorable William Cohen,

Secretary of Defense; the Honorable Louis Caldera, Secretary of the Army;

the Honorable Richard Danzig, Secretary of the Navy; the Commandant of

the Marine Corps, General Charles C. Krulak; and the Honorable F.W.

Peters, Acting Secretary of the Air Force. Copies will also be made

available to others upon request.

Page 14 GAO/NSIAD-99-52 Military Housing
B-281734 

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

on this report. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix IV.

Sincerely yours,

Mark E. Gebicke

Director, Military Operations

 and Capabilities Issues

Page 15 GAO/NSIAD-99-52 Military Housing
Contents

Letter 1

Appendixes Appendix I: Typical Room Floor Plans for Barracks Designs 18

Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 19

Appendix III: Comments From the Department of Defense 21

Appendix IV: Major Contributors to This Report 25

Tables Table 1: 1+1 Barracks Projects Approved Through Fiscal Year

1999

5

Table 2: Barracks Construction Cost Estimates for Each

Occupant

10

Table 3: Estimated Additional Funds Required to Fully Implement

Alternative Barracks Design Standards

11

Abbreviations

DOD Department of Defense

Page 16 GAO/NSIAD-99-52 Military Housing
Page 17 GAO/NSIAD-99-52 Military Housing
Appendix I 

Typical Room Floor Plans for Barracks

Designs

Bedroom

2 members

Bedroom

2 members

Bedroom

2 members

Bedroom

2 members

1 + 1 Module Interior Access

Closet

Shower Shower

Closet

Closet Closet

Closet Closet

Closet Closet Shower

2 + 0 Module Exterior Access

Module with 2 Sleeping Rooms, 1 Bath, No Kitchenette

Each room has 2 closets, 2 rooms share 1 bath.

Total building area maximum per module (sq ft): 850

Total building area maximum per room (sq ft): 425

Total net living area in sleeping room (sq ft): 180

Net living area in sleeping room per member (sq ft): 90

E1-E4 (E1-E3 Marines): 2 members per sleeping room, 4 members share bath

E5-E6 (E4-E5 Marines): 1 member per sleeping room, 2 members share bath

Module with 2 Sleeping Rooms, 2 Baths, Normally No Kitchenette

Each room has 2 closets and 1 bath.

Total building area maximum per module (sq ft): 915

Total building area maximum per room (sq ft): 458

Total net living area in sleeping room (sq ft): 180

Net living area in sleeping room per member (sq ft): 90

E1-E4 (E1-E3 Marines): 2 members per sleeping room, 2 members share bath.

E5-E6 (E4-E5 Marines): 1 member per sleeping room.

Module with 2 Private Sleeping Rooms, 2 Closets, 1 Bath, 1 Kitchenette

Total building area maximum per module (sq ft): 710

Total building area maximum per room (sq ft): 355

Total net living area in sleeping room (sq ft): 118

Net living area in sleeping room per member (sq ft): 118

E1-E4 (E1-E3 Marines): 1 member per sleeping room, 2 members share bath.

E5-E6 (E4-E5 Marines): 1 member per module (2 sleeping rooms).

2 + 2 Module Exterior Access

Closet Closet

Kitchenette

Bedroom

1 Member

Bedroom

1 Member

Page 18 GAO/NSIAD-99-52 Military Housing
Appendix II 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

As requested, we reviewed the Department of Defense’s (DOD) barracks

program in the United States to (1) determine the status of the services’

implementation of the 1+1 barracks design standard; (2) document DOD’s

rationale for adopting the standard; (3) determine the costs of alternatives

to the 1+1 standard; and (4) obtain service views of the impact of the

standard from a team-building, individual isolation, or similar perspective.

Our review focused on military barracks used to house permanent party

enlisted personnel in the United States.

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

headquarters of each military service. We interviewed responsible agency

personnel and reviewed applicable policies, procedures, and documents.

We also visited one installation of each service to observe barracks

designs and conditions and to talk with barracks managers and occupants.

We visited the following installations, as recommended by the respective

service headquarters: Fort Lewis, Washington; Cheatham Annex Fleet

Industrial Supply Center, Virginia; Edwards Air Force Base, California; and

Marine Corps Air Station, Beaufort, South Carolina.

To determine the status of each service’s barracks program, we obtained

and reviewed information on barracks policies, requirements, inventory,

and condition of the inventory. We also reviewed each service’s plans and

cost estimates for improving the barracks, including plans for

implementing the 1+1 design standard. We reviewed the status of military

construction barracks projects for fiscal years 1996-99, and for all 1+1

projects, we summarized the costs incurred and number of barracks

spaces provided.

To document DOD’s rationale for adopting the 1+1 barracks design

standard, we reviewed (1) changes to barracks design standards since

1970, (2) DOD and service documentation describing the process that

resulted in adoption of the 1+1 design standard, (3) previous DOD reports

discussing the rationale for the 1+1 design, and (4) the results from the

1992 triservice survey of barracks occupants. We also obtained and

reviewed available information on servicemembers’ quality of life and

reviewed retention statistics since fiscal year 1996.

To determine the costs of alternatives to the 1+1 standard, we analyzed

the services’ cost information on constructing military barracks using the

1+1, 2+0, and 2+2 design standards. We used this information to develop

estimates of the cost to construct a barracks space in accordance with

each of these standards. Using these cost estimates, data on the existing

Page 19 GAO/NSIAD-99-52 Military Housing
Appendix II 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

barracks inventory and approved barracks construction projects, and

service estimates of barracks requirements, we also estimated and

compared the costs for each service to fully implement each of the three

design standards. In addition, we obtained the views of service

representatives on the use of barracks designs other than the 1+1 design.

To obtain service views of the impact of the standard from an individual

isolation, team-building, or similar perspective, we (1) reviewed

documentation describing the process resulting in adoption of the 1+1

standard to determine whether any negative aspects of the design had

been identified and evaluated, (2) reviewed the justifications supporting

all service requests for waivers from using the 1+1 design standard, and

(3) obtained opinions on the matter from service representatives.

We conducted our review between July 1998 and January 1999 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Page 20 GAO/NSIAD-99-52 Military Housing
Appendix III 

Comments From the Department of Defense

Page 21 GAO/NSIAD-99-52 Military Housing
Appendix III 

Comments From the Department of Defense

Now on p. 2.

Page 22 GAO/NSIAD-99-52 Military Housing
Appendix III 

Comments From the Department of Defense

Now on p. 9.

Now on p. 9.

Now on p. 11.

Page 23 GAO/NSIAD-99-52 Military Housing
Appendix III 

Comments From the Department of Defense

Now on p. 11.

Page 24 GAO/NSIAD-99-52 Military Housing
Appendix IV 

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

(703252) Page 25 GAO/NSIAD-99-52 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