GAO

United States General Accounting Office

Report to the Chairman and Ranking 

Minority Member, Subcommittee on 

Military Personnel, Committee on Armed 

Services, House of Representatives

May 2001 MILITARY 

PERSONNEL

Higher Allowances 

Should Increase Use 

of Civilian Housing, 

but Not Retention

GAO-01-684

Page i GAO-01-684 Military Personnel

Letter 1

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 17

Appendix II Comments From the Department of Defense 19

Appendix III Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 21

Tables

Table 1: National Median Out-of-Pocket Costs for Civilian Housing

for Married Personnel, for Selected Pay Grades, Per Month 4

Figures

Figure 1: Where Military Personnel Live 5

Figure 2: Housing Options Chosen by Servicemembers, by Years of

Service 6

Figure 3: Preference for Civilian and Military Housing, if Costs

Were Equal 7

Figure 4: Satisfaction with Military Housing and Its Relationship to

Satisfaction with the Military Way of Life and Intent to

Stay in the Military for 20 Years 9

Figure 5: Satisfaction with Housing Allowances and Its

Relationship to Satisfaction with the Military Way of Life

and Intent to Stay in the Military for 20 Years 10

Figure 6: Satisfaction with Military Housing, Based on Where

Personnel Live 11

Figure 7: Satisfaction with Specific Characteristics of Military

Housing 12

Figure 8: Satisfaction with Specific Characteristics of Civilian

Housing 13

Contents
Page 1 GAO-01-684 Military Personnel

May 31, 2001

The Honorable John M. McHugh

Chairman

The Honorable Martin T. Meehan

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Military Personnel

Committee on Armed Services

House of Representatives

Reported inadequate military housing and the need to improve the quality

of life for military personnel have been prominent topics over the past

several years. The Department of Defense (DOD) has heavily invested in

its people and has thus been looking for ways to retain them by improving

their quality of life. As part of its compensation package, DOD provides its

military members with either an allowance to help defray the cost of

civilian (private sector) housing or free military housing. The Department's

policy is for its military members to rely on the private sector first for

housing, but those who receive a housing allowance may pay out of pocket

up to $200 or more each month. Last year, the Secretary of Defense

announced an initiative to increase the housing allowance for military

members to reduce their additional costs to zero by 2005.

In response to your request for information about the effect of the

increased housing allowance on servicemembers, we analyzed the results

of the broad-based 1999 Survey of Active Duty Personnel. We assisted in

the design of this survey and previously testified to the Subcommittee on

the preliminary results.1

 On the basis of our analysis of the final survey

data and other reports, we determined (1) how increasing the housing

allowance will satisfy the preferences of servicemembers, and (2) how

satisfaction with housing and allowances relates to servicemembers' intent

to stay in the military.

 1 Military Personnel: Preliminary Results of DOD's 1999 Survey of Active Duty Members

(GAO/T-NSIAD-00-110, Mar. 8, 2000).

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, DC 20548
Page 2 GAO-01-684 Military Personnel

Since servicemembers tend to prefer civilian housing, increasing the

housing allowance to eliminate additional costs to them should help the

Department satisfy servicemembers' preferences. Of those that receive an

allowance or live in military housing, about 72 percent said they would

prefer civilian housing if the costs were the same, but only about twothirds now live in civilian housing. Thus, if military members' housing

preferences were satisfied, thousands of additional personnel would be in

civilian housing instead of military housing. The primary reason

servicemembers live in military housing is the economic benefit; the

housing and utilities are free, so they avoid additional costs associated

with living in civilian housing. Other perceived benefits, like security and

family support available to those living in military housing, run a distant

second to the economic benefit. As DOD increases the housing allowance

over the next 5 years, the overall demand for civilian housing should

increase, while the demand for military housing should decline. As a

result, DOD should be in a better position to implement its stated policy of

relying on the private sector first for housing.

DOD cannot expect a substantial increase in retention to result solely from

increasing housing allowances. Together, housing and housing allowances

were cited by less than 1 percent of those surveyed as reasons for leaving

the military, trailing far behind the top reasons like basic pay, amount of

personal/family time, and quality of leadership. The survey data show that

some concerns about inadequate housing are warranted, but allegations of

widespread problems may be overstated. Overall, of those living in military

housing, more were satisfied (45 percent) than dissatisfied (36 percent).

About one-third of personnel living in military housing were dissatisfied

with the space, privacy, or quality of their residence. Of those living in

civilian housing, a high proportion were satisfied with the homes they

chose. However, 57 percent were dissatisfied with their housing

allowance. This dissatisfaction with the allowance is consistent with the

high dissatisfaction reported on all compensation-related survey items.

DOD reviewed a draft of this report and partially concurred with our

findings. The Department did not raise any questions or concerns about

our conclusion that higher housing allowances should increase the

demand for civilian housing by military personnel. But, DOD indicated it

believed that improvements to housing allowances are effectively pay

increases and would have a positive effect on retention. While we agree

that increasing compensation may have a positive effect on the overall

level of retention and stated so in our report, DOD does not have a

problem with overall retention. Instead, DOD’s retention problems are

focused in certain occupations, career levels, and grades. As we have

Results in Brief
Page 3 GAO-01-684 Military Personnel

reported earlier, we continue to emphasize that such specific retention

problems should be addressed with more targeted retention incentives

rather than across-the-board increases.

Amid reports of low military morale, Congress has sought reliable

information to assess the proposals proffered by DOD to improve the

quality of life for military members, such as the proposal to increase

housing allowances for military personnel. In 1999, we worked with DOD

to design the Survey of Active Duty Personnel to gather military members'

views on wide range of issues, including their views on military housing

and allowances. The Department administered the survey in the fall of

1999 to a stratified random sample of over 66,000 military personnel and

received responses from 51 percent.

In addition, Rand reported on the housing options available for military

families in a 1999 study. 2

 The report analyzes military families' preference

for types of housing, and the specific factors that influence their choices.

Rand based its findings on responses to a survey designed to collect

information on how military members selected housing as well as

information about how military members might respond to changes in

housing policies.

DOD will spend more than $10 billion in fiscal 2001 to provide housing for

military members and their families, either by paying a cash allowance for

servicemembers to live in private sector housing or by assigning families

to government-owned or –leased housing. The Department's policy is for

its military members to rely on the private sector first for housing. Military

members who live off base in civilian housing are entitled to the basic

allowance for housing. This allowance is intended to provide

servicemembers equitable housing compensation based on pay grade,

number of dependents, and the local median monthly cost of housing.

Housing costs include current market rent, average utilities, and renter's

insurance. Currently, military members are expected to pay 15 percent of

the housing costs themselves. (Table 1 shows the average out-of-pocket

expenses, by pay grade.) DOD plans to reduce the out-of-pocket expense

to zero by 2005 for those servicemembers who live in civilian housing.

 2 An Evaluation of Housing Options for Military Families (MR-1020-OSD, 1999). Rand

surveyed military personnel, using a cluster sample of 4,400 military members at 12 bases

across the country.

Background
Page 4 GAO-01-684 Military Personnel

Table 1: National Median Out-of-Pocket Costs for Civilian Housing for Married

Personnel, for Selected Pay Grades, Per Month

 Enlisted Officers

E1-E3 $116 O-1 $137

E-4 123 O-2 153

E-5 135 O-3 179

E-6 153 O-4 201

E-7 163 O-5 216

E-8 173 O-6 218

E-9 185

Note: These costs reflect the 15 percent out-of-pocket expense for civilian housing applicable in

2001.

Source: GAO generated from DOD-provided data.

Personnel who live in government-provided housing forfeit their housing

allowance but pay nothing out of pocket for housing or utilities. However,

DOD reports that many of its government-owned houses are in poor

condition. The Department estimates that it would take 30 years and $16

billion to upgrade or replace existing inadequate family housing. To

improve military housing faster and more economically than could be

achieved if only traditional military construction appropriations were

used, the Congress enacted legislation at DOD's request authorizing a

program termed the Military Housing Privatization Initiative, to allow

private sector financing, ownership, operation, and maintenance of

military housing. Under the initiative, DOD can provide direct loans, loan

guarantees, and other incentives to encourage private developers to

construct and operate housing either on or off military installations.3

About 919,000 personnel (74 percent of the active duty force) live in

military family housing or receive an allowance for civilian housing. The

remaining 329,000 personnel (26 percent) live in barracks (dormitories or

bachelor quarters) or aboard ships.4

 For the rest of the analyses, we will

focus specifically on those that live in civilian or military housing and

exclude those in barracks or aboard ships. Figure 1 shows the proportion

 3

 10 U.S.C. 2871 et seq.

4

 The data used in this report comes from DOD's 1999 Survey of Active Duty Personnel. It

has been weighted to represent the total population in the military services with 6 months

or more of service as of May 1999.
Page 5 GAO-01-684 Military Personnel

of military personnel that live in civilian or military housing and the

proportion that live in barracks or aboard ships.

Figure 1: Where Military Personnel Live

Source: Responses to the 1999 Survey of Active Duty Personnel.

Of those living in civilian or military family housing, about 619,000

personnel (67 percent) live in civilian housing, while about 300,000

personnel (33 percent) live in military housing. Officers are more likely to

live in civilian housing than enlisted personnel. Also, personnel are more

likely to live in civilian housing as they gain seniority. By the time

personnel have 20 years or more service, 75 percent live in civilian

housing. Figure 2 shows the type of housing in which servicemembers live,

74% • Civilian/

military housing

•26%

Barracks/

aboard ship

Civilian • 67%

housing

•33%

Military

housing
Page 6 GAO-01-684 Military Personnel

by years of service.

Figure 2: Housing Options Chosen by Servicemembers, by Years of Service

Source: Responses to the 1999 Survey of Active Duty Personnel.

Home ownership also increases dramatically with years of service, while

renting decreases. For military personnel with 5 years of service or less, 14

percent own their home. By 20 years or more of service, the proportion

increases to 53 percent. In total, about 277,000 personnel (30 percent)

owned a home when the survey was administered in the fall of 1999. It is

important to note that while the housing allowance is calculated based on

the rental market, military members may apply their allowance toward

purchasing a home, potentially gaining equity and enjoying the tax

advantages of home ownership. However, the frequent moves required by

military service may make home ownership difficult or impractical.

5 years

or less

6-10

years

11-15

years

16-19

years

20+

years

Military housing

Civilian housing rent

Civilian housing own

100

0

20

40

60

In percent

80
Page 7 GAO-01-684 Military Personnel

According to DOD's 1999 Survey of Active Duty Personnel, 72 percent of

military personnel would prefer civilian housing if costs were equal (see

fig. 3). Similarly, Rand reported that servicemembers prefer civilian

housing if cost was not a factor, and concluded that DOD should consider

decreasing military housing and encouraging military members to live off

base. In making this conclusion, Rand recognized the inherent link

between housing allowances and military housing; that is, increasing the

housing allowance should lessen the need for military housing.

Figure 3: Preference for Civilian and Military Housing, if Costs Were Equal

Source: Responses to the 1999 Survey of Active Duty Personnel.

Mismatches between where people would prefer to live and where they

actually live were significant. Not everyone who prefers civilian housing is

living in civilian housing, and vice versa. Overall, the number of personnel

in civilian housing would increase by about 45,000 if the preferences of all

personnel were satisfied, and the number in military housing would

decrease by a like amount. This is because about 176,000 personnel that

prefer civilian housing now live in military housing. And about 130,000 of

those that prefer military housing now live in civilian housing. It must be

noted that the availability of housing varies location by location, so it

would likely never be possible to satisfy all servicemembers' preferences.

According to DOD officials, civilian housing is often unavailable in

sufficient numbers in remote locations; conversely, some bases have

relatively little military housing.

Housing Allowance

Increase Will Better

Satisfy Preference for

Civilian Housing

72% • Prefer civilian housing

•28%

Prefer military housing
Page 8 GAO-01-684 Military Personnel

Department officials anticipate that increasing the housing allowance will

decrease demand for military housing. At least part of this conclusion is

based on Rand's 1999 report, which noted that only 18 to 20 percent of the

military members surveyed preferred military housing, regardless of cost

and waiting time. Using Rand's estimate, the core requirement for those

preferring military housing would be more than 120,000 less than the

number now living there. Department officials also believe that the

housing allowance increase will ultimately change the composition of the

population in military housing. Rand's analysis indicated that demographic

characteristics are the main factor in the demand for military housing.

Those who prefer military housing include lower income personnel

(especially junior enlisted personnel), those with spouses that do not work

outside the home, and those with a greater number of children. Military

members with larger families are entitled to a larger residence in military

housing than they would likely be able to afford on the civilian market

(civilian housing allowances increase by pay grade).

Some installations have long waiting lists for military housing, which

would seem to evidence a strong demand for military housing. Department

officials warned us that the lists can be misleading because many

personnel on them do not take military housing when offered because they

have already found suitable civilian housing while waiting. In addition,

DOD recognizes concerns among service leaders that housing military

personnel off installations in civilian housing would weaken the sense of

military community. According to Rand, however, the demand for military

housing seems largely dependent on it being economical; servicemembers

simply want to avoid the additional costs associated with civilian housing.

More than 60 percent reported that they lived in military housing for

economic reasons. The economic benefit dominated all other factors,

including security, proximity to work, availability, better schools, and

having military neighbors. Military members in focus group discussions

"scoffed" at the notion that being in military housing helped them to do a

better job.

DOD should not expect a substantial increase in personnel retention solely

from its initiative to increase the housing allowance. Although increased

dissatisfaction with military housing and allowances is linked with

dissatisfaction with the military way of life, the proportion of military

personnel that indicated an intent to stay in the military for a 20-year

career does not change as dissatisfaction increases (see figs. 4 and 5). This

is not unexpected, since we previously testified that the retention decision

is complicated, highly personal, and usually a function of many factors

No Clear Link

Between

Housing and

Retention
Page 9 GAO-01-684 Military Personnel

including the prospects for other employment. Because pay is the top

factor cited in retention decisions—both to stay and to leave, DOD may

accrue some benefit from increasing the housing allowance because the

military member's paycheck will increase by the amount of the allowance.

Figure 4: Satisfaction with Military Housing and Its Relationship to Satisfaction with

the Military Way of Life and Intent to Stay in the Military for 20 Years

Source: Responses to the 1999 Survey of Active Duty Personnel.

In percent

0

20

40

60

80

100

Very satisfied Satisfied Neither dissatisfied Very dissatisfied

74

63 66 64

51

62

48

66

35

62

Satisfaction with military way of life

Intent to stay for 20 years
Page 10 GAO-01-684 Military Personnel

Figure 5: Satisfaction with Housing Allowances and Its Relationship to Satisfaction

with the Military Way of Life and Intent to Stay in the Military for 20 Years

Source: Responses to the 1999 Survey of Active Duty Personnel.

Responses to another survey question lend additional support to the

conclusion that housing and housing allowances do not seem to drive the

retention decision for many personnel. Survey respondents were asked to

choose among 37 aspects of military life to identify the top issues causing

them to leave, or think about leaving, the military. Military housing was

cited as the top reason by only .2 percent, while housing allowances were

cited by .5 percent—together, less than 1 percent of the active duty force.

The top reasons included basic pay (27 percent), amount of

personal/family time (9 percent), quality of leadership (8 percent), and

deployments (7 percent).

Concerns about the quality of military housing are warranted but seem

overstated as a factor in retaining personnel, based on the survey data.

Overall, more personnel who live in military housing were satisfied than

dissatisfied. Of those living in military housing, about 45 percent were

satisfied, while 36 percent were dissatisfied (see fig. 6). The perception of

military housing appears to be worse than the reality experienced by those

living in military housing. Those personnel living in civilian housing at the

Satisfaction with Military

Housing

In percent

0

20

40

60

80

100

Very satisfied Satisfied Neither dissatisfied Very dissatisfied

75

68 66

61

55

63

52

65

40

64

Satisfaction with military way of life

Intent to stay for 20 years
Page 11 GAO-01-684 Military Personnel

time the survey was administered that chose to rate military housing had

much less satisfaction (9 percent) with it than those living in military

housing (45 percent).

Figure 6: Satisfaction with Military Housing, Based on Where Personnel Live

Note: Percentages may not add due to rounding.

Source: Responses to the 1999 Survey of Active Duty Personnel.

On the basis of our analysis of specific attributes of military housing,

personnel living in military housing were more satisfied than dissatisfied

with all of the measured characteristics. The greatest dissatisfaction was

with the space, privacy, and quality-related characteristics of their

housing, as shown in figure 7.

In percent

0

20

40

60

80

100

Satisfied Neither Dissatisfied

45

9

19

23

36

67

Military housing

Civilian housing
Page 12 GAO-01-684 Military Personnel

Figure 7: Satisfaction with Specific Characteristics of Military Housing

Note: Percentages may not add due to rounding.

Source: Responses to the 1999 Survey of Active Duty Personnel.

Servicemembers were generally satisfied with specific aspects of the

civilian residence they chose but were dissatisfied with their housing

allowance, the distance from their homes to work, and their living space

(see fig. 8). Only about 26 percent of those receiving housing allowances

were satisfied, while 57 percent were dissatisfied. This is partly because

personnel must pay additional costs to live in civilian housing. However, a

relatively high proportion of servicemembers were dissatisfied with other

Satisfaction with Civilian

Housing

53 12 35

44 21 35

48 22 30

55 15 30

67 16 18

63 21 16

75 13 12

82 8 10

67 24 9

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

In percent

Space

Privacy

Quality of

area

Quality of

residence

Distance to

shopping

Distance to

recreation

Safety

Distance to

workplace

Cost

Dissatisfied

Neither

Satisfied
Page 13 GAO-01-684 Military Personnel

pay-related survey items, for example, basic pay (59 percent dissatisfied),

reenlistment and continuation pay (65 percent), and retirement pay (57

percent).

Figure 8: Satisfaction with Specific Characteristics of Civilian Housing

Note: Percentages may not add due to rounding.

Source: Responses to the 1999 Survey of Active Duty Personnel.

68 14 18

74 14 12

68 18 14

76 14 10

75 15 10

65 21 14

74 15 11

64 16 19

52 19 30

Space

Privacy

Quality of

area

Quality of

residence

Distance to

shopping

Distance to

recreation

Safety

Distance to

workplace

Cost

Dissatisfied

Neither

Satisfied

0 20 40 60 80 100

In percent

120
Page 14 GAO-01-684 Military Personnel

We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Defense for

comment. The Department partially concurred with our report. DOD’s

comments are presented in their entirety in Appendix II. DOD did not

raise any questions or concerns about our conclusion that higher housing

allowances should increase the demand for civilian housing by military

personnel. The Department, however, indicated it did “not concur that

improvements to housing allowances, which are effectively pay increases,

would not have a positive effect on retention.” That statement, however,

mis-characterizes what we actually said. We stated that “DOD should not

expect a substantial increase in personnel retention solely from its

initiative to increase the housing allowance.” While we agree that

increasing compensation may have a positive effect on the overall level of

retention and stated so in our report, DOD does not have a problem with

overall retention. Instead, DOD’s retention problems are focused in

certain occupations, career levels, and grades.5

 We have reported before

that such specific retention problems should be addressed with more

targeted retention incentives aimed at particular segments of the force that

are experiencing retention shortfalls.6

 Housing allowances, and other

across-the-board increases, do little to address specific retention

problems.

DOD also raised a concern about the use of the data from DOD’s 1999

Survey of Active Duty Personnel, indicating that individual responses to

survey questions are highly subjective and that information from one

survey administered almost two years ago was not sufficient evidence.

While we agree that survey responses are subjective, that is the strength of

survey data—it provides the views of actual servicemembers rather than

those of policymakers. DOD’s Survey of Active Duty Personnel was a

well-designed omnibus survey sent to a large sample that was projectable

to military personnel across DOD. These survey results provide the most

recent and most reliable data available to the Department on the views of

military personnel across the services.

DOD stated that improvements to housing allowances are essentially pay

increases and would therefore have a positive effect on retention. DOD

stated that important characteristics that influence the relationship

 5 Military Personnel: Systematic Analysis Needed to Monitor Retention in Key Careers

and Occupations (GAO/NSIAD-00-60, March 8, 2000).

6 Military Retirement: Proposed Changes Warrant Careful Analysis (GAO/T-NSIAD-99-94,

February 24, 1999).

Agency Comments

and Our Evaluation
Page 15 GAO-01-684 Military Personnel

between housing allowances and retention were not analyzed. However,

DOD did not identify what those characteristics were. Nevertheless, to

recheck our conclusion that satisfaction with the housing allowance has

only a marginal impact on retention, we used a statistical technique called

partial correlation analysis to screen out the effects of variables known to

be related to retention, such as years of service and overall satisfaction.

This analysis showed that once the effects of years of service and overall

satisfaction were accounted for, satisfaction with the housing allowance

contributed virtually nothing to our ability to predict career intent—

accounting for only about two-tenths of 1 percent of the total variance.

To bolster its argument that increased housing allowances lead to higher

retention rates, DOD cited an analysis based on an Army economic model.

This model predicted that an increase of 10 percent in the housing

allowance would result in an increase of approximately 1.6 percentage

points in the Army’s fiscal year 2000 first-term reenlistment rate of 51.3

percent. However, this example actually illustrates a key underlying

point—that housing allowances, like other across-the-board benefit

increases, are very expensive and not very useful for addressing specific

retention shortfalls. First of all, the Army does not have a problem

retaining first-term personnel. DOD recently reported that the Army

exceeded its fiscal year 2000 goal for first-term reenlistments by 7

percent.7

 Second, even if the Army were concerned about first-term

reenlistment, increasing housing allowances would be a poor choice as an

incentive since more than three-quarters of the Army’s first-termers live in

military housing and therefore do not receive a housing allowance.

Consequently, very little of the incentive would actually reach the target

group and much of it would likely go to those who are already inclined to

remain in the military. Lastly, DOD’s example indicates that a 10 percent

increase in the housing allowance would yield only a 3 percent increase in

overall retention within that target group. This again points to the lack of

cost-effectiveness of treating pockets of problems with incentives that

apply to the entire force.

Nothing we have said in this report should be taken as meaning that

military housing and housing allowances should not be improved. Rather,

we are saying that these decisions should be based on their own merits,

 7 Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA)—FY 2000 Performance Report Office

of the Secretary of Defense, Program Analysis and Evaluation, March 16, 2001).
Page 16 GAO-01-684 Military Personnel

not on the expectation that such actions will address DOD’s retention

problems in specific specialties or year groups.

We are sending copies of this report to appropriate congressional

committees; the Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense; and

the Honorable Charles L. Cragin, Acting Under Secretary of Defense,

Personnel and Readiness. Copies will also be made available to other

interested parties upon request.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me

at 202-512-5559. A list of additional contacts and staff acknowledgments is

in appendix III.

Derek B. Stewart

Director

Defense Capabilities and Management
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 17 GAO-01-684 Military Personnel

Reliable assessments of military climate are essential for congressional

policymakers as they consider the quality-of-life proposals offered by the

Department of Defense (DOD). To provide such data, we worked with the

Department to design the 1999 Survey of Active Duty Personnel. It was

mailed in the fall of 1999 to a stratified, random sample of over 66,000

military personnel. DOD provided the final survey data to us in late 2000.

Technical details about the survey are provided below.

To determine how increasing the housing allowance would satisfy the

preference of servicemembers, we analyzed the results of the survey,

focusing our analyses on the stated preference reported by

servicemembers living in military and civilian housing. We compared our

results to those reported in a DOD-sponsored report by Rand and

discussed the results with officials from the Office of Secretary of Defense.

To assess how satisfaction with housing and allowances relates to

servicemembers' intent to stay in the military, we used the survey data to

examine the relationships between satisfaction and retention. Specifically,

we performed cross-tabulations between satisfaction with housing and

allowances and overall satisfaction with military life and intent to stay in

the military. We examined these relationships by service, pay grade, and

years of service. To better understand the reasons for servicemembers'

housing choices and preferences, we analyzed the results of the active

duty survey as well as Rand's results.

We performed our work between October 2000 and May 2001 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

The active duty survey is a recurring survey that DOD last administered in

1992. When the Department learned that the Subcommittee on Military

Personnel had asked us to administer a separate survey to military

personnel, the Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense (Force Management

Policy) offered to allow us to include questions on the survey DOD was

already planning to conduct. We worked with DOD staff to refine the

survey instrument and address additional content areas. The survey was

pretested and refined at Navy bases around Jacksonville, Florida; Pope Air

Force Base, Fayetteville, North Carolina; and the U.S. Marine base at

Quantico, Virginia. Time constraints prevented additional pretesting with

Army and Coast Guard personnel beyond that performed by DOD on an

earlier version of the survey.

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Development of

DOD's Active Duty

Survey
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 18 GAO-01-684 Military Personnel

The sample of 66,040 military members was drawn from a May 1999

population of 1,419,269 active duty DOD and U.S. Coast Guard personnel

who were below the rank of admiral or general and had at least 6 months

of service. The sample was stratified on five variables: service; pay grade;

gender; location; that is, inside or outside the continental United States;

and marital status. DOD survey experts used response rates from prior

surveys to adjust the sample for groups with differing expected rates of

survey completion. Also, the sample was designed to provide varying

levels of precision for numerous subgroups (e.g., + 3 percentage points for

each service or pay grade group and + 5 percentage points for senior

officers in the Army).

As of January 2000, DOD had received 37,119 surveys between the start of

the survey administration and the end of the fielding period. Some surveys

were eliminated because they (1) had been returned blank, (2) were

duplicates from the same individual, or (3) came from respondents who

had left active duty before the fielding period ended. DOD computed a

weighted response rate of 51 percent. The Department used a contractor

to administer the survey. We did not test the contractor's procedures or

validate the data provided to us. We did review DOD's and its contractor's

quality control procedures for a similar large survey.

Data were weighted to reflect the population of interest. The weights

reflected (a) the probability of selection for that servicemember, (b) a

nonresponse adjustment to minimize bias arising from differential

response rates among demographic subgroups, and (c) a poststratification factor for September 1999—the month in which the

questionnaire was first distributed.

DOD assumed that nonrespondents would have answered like

respondents—an often-used assumption in survey methodologies. There is

some risk of nonresponse bias, but it would take elaborate and timeconsuming work to test for this bias. In recent years, both military and

civilian surveys have experienced decreased response rates. Although

weighting can adjust for the differing sampling rates and response rates

within the sampling cells, weighting cannot adjust for possible differences

between those who do and those who do not respond to a survey.

However, it should be recognized that the active duty survey is the only

source of DOD-wide information for many issues, and it is far more

reliable than anecdotal information or information generated by smaller,

nonrepresentative samples.

Sample Construction

Survey Administration

Weighting Responses
Appendix II: Comments From the Department of Defense

Page 19 GAO-01-684 Military Personnel

Appendix II: Comments From the

Department of Defense
Appendix II: Comments From the Department of Defense

Page 20 GAO-01-684 Military Personnel
Appendix III: Contacts and

Staff Acknowledgments

Page 21 GAO-01-684 Military Personnel

William E. Beusse (202) 512-3517

John H. Pendleton (404) 679-1816

In addition to those named above, Kristy Williams, Jack Edwards, Aisha

Mahmood, Gary Phillips, Margaret Skiba, and Matthew Ullengren made

important contributions to this report.

Appendix III: Contacts and Staff

Acknowledgments

GAO Contacts

Acknowledgments

(350001)

The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of reports are

$2 each. A check or money order should be made out to the

Superintendent of Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are also

accepted.

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

Orders by visiting:

Room 1100

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

Washington, DC 20013

Orders by phone:

(202) 512-6000

fax: (202) 512-6061

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.

Orders by Internet

For information on how to access GAO reports on the Internet, send an email 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

Contact one:

• Web site: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

• E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

• 1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system)

Ordering Information

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in

Federal Programs