United States General Accounting Office 

GAO Report to Congressional Committees 

September 2003 MILITARY TRAINING 

Strategic Planning and 

Distributive Learning 

Could Benefit the 

Special Operations 

Forces Foreign 

Language Program 

GAO-03-1026 

Highlights of GAO-03-1026, a report to the 

Senate and House Committees on Armed 

Services 

Of the 44,000 special operations 

forces (SOF) that perform difficult, 

complex, and sensitive military 

missions on short notice anytime 

and anywhere in the world, more 

than 12,000 (28 percent) have a 

foreign language requirement to 

operate in places where English is 

not spoken. In the Senate Report 

on the Fiscal Year 2003 National 

Defense Authorization Act, 

Congress mandated that GAO 

review SOF foreign language 

requirements and training. In 

this report, we (1) assess the 

U.S. Special Operations 

Command’s recent actions to 

improve the management of the 

SOF foreign language program 

and the delivery of training, and 

(2) identify ways for the command 

to deal with ongoing challenges 

that limit SOF personnel’s access 

to language-training opportunities. 

To improve the management and 

delivery of language training, GAO 

is recommending that the Secretary 

of Defense direct the U.S. Special 

Operations Command to (1) adopt 

a strategy and strategic planning 

and (2) incorporate distributivelearning approaches. GAO also 

recommends that the Secretary 

evaluate proficiency pay incentives 

and pay and allowance funding for 

SOF reserve and guard members 

and options for oral testing. The 

Department of Defense agreed with 

all but one recommendation, 

stating that it could not adopt a 

strategy until it was properly 

reviewed and approved. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-1026. 

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Neal Curtin at 

(757) 552-8100 or curtinn@gao.gov. 

September 2003 

MILITARY TRAINING 

Strategic Planning and 


Distributive Learning Could Benefit the 


Special Operations Forces Foreign 


Language Program 


Recent actions taken by the U.S. Special Operations Command are 

starting to address some long-standing problems with the management of 

the SOF foreign language program and the delivery of language training. 

In September 2002, the command consolidated all training under a single 

contractor to provide a universal, standardized curriculum and a range of 

delivery mechanisms for Army, Navy, and Air Force SOF components. 

Initial assessments suggest that the contractor’s offerings are meeting 

contract expectations. In other actions, the program is completing an 

overdue assessment of SOF language requirements, developing a database 

of language proficiencies and training, and finding ways to take advantage 

of other national language-training assets. While promising, these ongoing 

actions are taking place without the benefit of a cohesive management 

framework incorporating a strategy and strategic planning to guide, 

integrate, and monitor its activities. Without such a framework, the program 

risks losing its current momentum and failing to meet new language-training 

needs that SOF personnel are likely to acquire as they take on expanded 

roles in combating terrorism and other military operations. 

The SOF foreign language program continues to face challenges, such as 

more frequent and longer deployments, that limit personnel’s access to 

language training. Army Reserve and National Guard SOF members face 

additional difficulties in gaining access to centrally located training 

because of geographical dispersion and part-time status; they also have 

lower monetary incentives to acquire language proficiencies and fewer 

training opportunities. As a result, most SOF personnel have been unable 

to take needed training or required tests to qualify in their respective 

language(s). To address these challenges, program officials are looking 

into distance/distributive-learning approaches, which offer “anytime, 

anywhere” training that would be highly adaptable to SOF personnel needs, 

but they are still at an early stage in their evaluations. 

Number of SOF Personnel Requiring Language Skills 
Contents 


Letter 

Results in Brief 


Background


Program Addresses Some Long-Standing Problems but 


Lacks a Strategic Planning Approach 

Approach Needed to Improve Access to Language-Training 

Resources 

Conclusions 

Recommendations for Executive Action 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 

1 

2 

4 

9 

16 

24 

26 

26 

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 

Appendix II Language Proficiency Levels and Requirements 

Appendix III 	 Status of the Language Services Contract between 

the U.S. Special Operations Command and 

B.I.B. Consultants 

Appendix IV Comments from the Department of Defense 

Appendix V GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 

Tables 

Table 1: Special Operations Forces Personnel Requiring Foreign 

Language Proficiency, by Service Component 7 

Table 2: Number of Special Operations Forces Personnel Needing 

Language Training for Quarter Ending March 31, 2003 19 

Table 3: Personnel Meeting Language Proficiency Requirement 

from Quarters Ending September 2002 through June 2003 20 

Table 4: Continuum of Learning Methods 23 

Table 5: Organizations and Offices Contacted during Our Review 28 

Table 6: Foreign Language Capabilities at Proficiency Levels 33 

Page i GAO-03-1026 Military Training 

28 

32 

35 

41 

44 
Table 7: U.S. Special Operations Command Proficiency Standards 

for Service Components 34 

Table 8: Foreign Language Training Provided by B.I.B. Consultants 

Contract 35 

Table 9: Student Evaluations Responses from Some Initial 

Acquisition SOF Language Classes at the U.S. Army 

John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School, 

Fort Bragg, North Carolina, during the First Quarter of 

200338 

Table 10: Student Evaluations Responses from Initial Acquisition 

SOF Language Classes at Naval Special Warfare 

Command, Group I, Coronado, California, during the 

Second Quarter of 2003 40 

Figure 

Figure 1: Student Proficiency Score Results for Listening and 

Reading for Initial Acquisition Language Courses at the 

Army’s John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center 

and School for the First Quarter of Fiscal Year 2003 

Abbreviations 

DOD Department of Defense 


SCOLA Satellite Communications for Learning 


SOF special operations forces 


SOFLO Special Operations Forces Language Office 


This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 

Page ii GAO-03-1026 Military Training 

37 
United States General Accounting Office 

Washington, DC 20548 

September 30, 2003 


The Honorable John W. Warner 


Chairman 


The Honorable Carl Levin 


Ranking Minority Member 


Committee on Armed Services 


United States Senate 


The Honorable Duncan Hunter 


Chairman 


The Honorable Ike Skelton 


Ranking Minority Member 


Committee on Armed Services 


House of Representatives 


As they have recently demonstrated in Afghanistan and Iraq, special 


operations forces (SOF) are playing an increasingly significant role in 


U.S. military operations by performing extremely difficult, complex, and


politically sensitive missions on short notice anytime and anywhere in the 


world. To successfully conduct these missions, SOF personnel must 


undergo extensive training—often years in duration—to acquire a wide 


variety of military skills, among them a proficiency in a foreign language. 


More than one-fourth of all SOF military personnel, or about 12,000 out 


of 44,000, have a foreign language requirement in order to enable them to 


operate effectively in countries where languages other than English 


are spoken.


To meet its specific language training needs, the U.S. Special Operations 


Command1

 (the command) established a separate foreign language 


1

The U.S. Special Operations Command, located at MacDill Air Force Base, Fla., is one 

of nine unified commands in the U.S. military’s combatant command structure and is 

responsible for all special operations forces. The command’s organization includes three 

service component commands: the U.S Army Special Operations Command, Fort Bragg, 

N.C.; the U.S. Naval Special Warfare Command, Coronado, Calif.; and the U.S. Air Force 

Special Operations Command, Hurlburt Field, Fla. 

Page 1 GAO-03-1026 Military Training 
program within the Department of Defense (DOD) in the early 1990s.2

 The 

command delegated the U.S. Army Special Operations Command as its 

proponent for foreign language matters and, in turn, the Army command 

set up the Special Operations Forces Language Office (SOFLO) to oversee 

and manage the SOF foreign language program. The program prescribes 

the policies for all aspects of the program, including its funding; reporting; 

and delivery of initial acquisition, sustainment, and enhancement training 

for SOF forces in the Army, Navy, and Air Force. 

The Senate Report on the Fiscal Year 2003 National Defense Authorization 

Act3

 mandated that we review the foreign language requirements and 

training for SOF personnel. In December 2002 and April 2003, we 

briefed your offices on the initial results of our review. In this report, we 

(1) assess recent actions taken by the U.S. Special Operations Command 

to improve the management and delivery of its foreign language training 

to special operations forces personnel and (2) identify ways for the 

command to deal with challenges that limit accessibility to its foreign 

language-training resources. 

We conducted our review from October 2002 through July 2003 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Our scope and methodology are described in appendix I. 

Results in Brief 
 Recent actions taken by the U.S. Special Operations Command are 

beginning to address some long-standing problems that have affected 

the management of the foreign language program and the delivery of its 

training. However, these actions are being taken without the benefit of a 

cohesive management framework that could foster continued program 

improvements. In September 2002, the command consolidated all of its 

language training under a single contractor to reduce problems with 

multiple contractors and inconsistencies in the type, quality, and 

2

Most DOD personnel acquire their foreign language training through the Defense Foreign 

Language Program. The Department of the Army, the program’s executive agent, manages 

and oversees the program. The Defense Language Institute is the primary educational 

facility for DOD’s language training. While the SOF foreign language program provides 

most of its training separately from the Defense Foreign Language Program, the SOF 

program can use DOD and other government-language-training resources to fulfill its 

needs. 

3

U.S. Senate, Committee on Armed Services, National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2003 Report, Senate Report 107-151 (Washington, D.C.: 2002). 

Page 2 GAO-03-1026 Military Training 
acquisition of training. The new contract is expected to offer the 

program a universal, standardized training curriculum; a range of 

delivery mechanisms; and the consistent monitoring of student and 

teacher performance. An initial quarterly review by the command in 

March 2003 and our analysis of student performance data suggest that the 

contractor’s offerings are meeting the expectations set out in the contract, 

such as students’ achievement of proficiency goals. In other actions, 

the program is (1) completing a long overdue assessment of language 

requirements; (2) expanding its communication and coordination between 

the Army, Navy, and Air Force SOF offices that use its training and with 

other language resource stakeholders; (3) developing a database to 

track foreign language proficiencies and training across the services; 

and (4) examining ways to take better advantage of other national 

language-training resources (e.g., the Defense Language Institute). 

While promising, these actions are being taken without the advantage of 

a cohesive management framework that incorporates strategic planning 

(a strategy and a strategic plan with an associated performance plan 

and reports) that could guide the program, integrate its activities, and 

monitor its performance. The command has drafted a strategy for 

meeting its foreign language requirements—a first step in developing this 

framework—but it has not yet approved it. Without such a framework, the 

program risks losing its current momentum, and it may be unable to meet 

the new language-training needs that SOF personnel are likely to have as 

they take on expanded roles and responsibilities in counterterrorism and 

other military operations. 

The SOF foreign language program continues to face ongoing 

challenges that limit the access that special operations forces have 

to language-training opportunities, but it is beginning to seek ways to 

resolve these. More frequent and longer deployments and competing 

priority training needs have reduced the time that both active-duty and 

reserve/guard units have for language training. SOF personnel in Army 

Reserve and National Guard units face further difficulties in gaining access 

to centrally located language training because of their geographical 

dispersion and part-time status. These part-time personnel also receive 

lower monetary incentives for meeting language proficiency standards 

than their active-duty counterparts, and their units do not have the pay and 

allowance funds to send all of them to language training. As a result, most 

SOF personnel have been unable to get the training or take the proficiency 

tests they need to qualify in their respective language(s). Furthermore, 

language proficiency testing by oral interview, which program officials 

consider as more germane to SOF requirements, is not always available or 

used to measure language proficiency for qualification. Moreover, as their 

Page 3 GAO-03-1026 Military Training 
roles and responsibilities expand, SOF personnel may face further 

limitations on their access to training, although the precise impacts of 

these changes are still not clear. Although the command’s new contract 

offers some new and more flexible training options, it does not cover 

nontraditional training methods, such as distance/distributive learning, 

which can provide “anytime, anywhere” options that would be highly 

adaptable to SOF personnel training needs. Program officials are 

looking into some of these new options (e.g., regular and broadband 

Internet-based language resources and video tele-training) and the 

resources that would be needed to incorporate them into the program, 

but they are still at an early stage in their evaluations. 

We are making recommendations to improve the management and 

delivery of the SOF foreign language-training program by adopting a 

strategy and developing strategic planning tools; increase SOF personnel’s 

access to foreign language training by incorporating distance/distributivelearning tools into the SOF program; provide Army Reserve and National 

Guard personnel with greater monetary incentives and training advantages 

to acquire and maintain language proficiency; and provide additional 

opportunities for SOF personnel to test and qualify in their respective 

language(s) by increasing the use and availability of oral proficiency 

interview testing. In its comments on a draft of this report, DOD agreed 

with all but one recommendation. DOD did not agree with our 

recommendation to adopt a strategy and develop strategic-planning tools, 

stating that it could not adopt a SOF language strategy until it was 

properly reviewed and approved within the department. We clarified this 

recommendation to make it clear that we did not intend to circumvent the 

department’s review and approval process. 

Background 	 Foreign language needs have significantly increased throughout DOD and 

the federal government with the presence of a wider range of security 

threats, the emergence of new nation states, and the globalization of the 

U.S. economy. The difficulties in maintaining sufficient foreign language 

capabilities among federal agencies and departments have been identified 

as a serious human capital problem for some time.4

 The entire military 

has faced shortfalls in language capability in recent operations, such as 

4

See hearings before the Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation, and 

Federal Services, Committee on Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate, on The State of 

Foreign Language Capabilities in National Security and the Federal Government 

(Sept. 14 and 19, 2000). 

Page 4 GAO-03-1026 Military Training 
difficulties in finding sufficient numbers of qualified language speakers 

during peacekeeping operations in the Balkans and combat actions in 

Afghanistan. In recent reports, we have stated that shortages of staff with 

foreign language skills have affected agency operations and have hindered 

U.S. military, law enforcement, intelligence, counterterrorism, and 

diplomatic efforts.5 

The U.S. Special Operations Command faces similar challenges in 

managing its SOF language training to maintain sufficient language 

capability to support its missions. For example, (1) it is common for SOF 

personnel to have received language training in more than three languages 

during their career; (2) SOF units often operate in geographic regions 

where there are numerous languages, (3) high operational demands and 

force structure limitations often require SOF personnel to operate in areas 

where their specific foreign language(s) are not spoken, and (4) it is 

difficult to determine the right languages and personnel mix to address a 

wide variety of unknown and hard-to-forecast small-scale conflicts. 

The U.S. Special Operations Command established its SOF Foreign 

Language Program in 1993 to provide combatant commanders with SOF 

individuals and units that have the required foreign language proficiency 

to meet current and future operational requirements.6

 The command 

designated the U.S. Army Special Operations Command, at Fort Bragg, 

North Carolina, as the proponent in all matters related to training, policies, 

programs, and procedures for SOF language requirements and capabilities. 

In 1998, the Army Command established the Special Operations Forces 

Language Office at Fort Bragg. Currently located in the command’s 

training directorate, the office is responsible for providing technical 

oversight and developing, coordinating, and executing foreign-languagetraining strategies for active-duty, reserve, and National Guard SOF 

5

To address current and projected shortages in staff with foreign language skills, we 

recommended that the Secretary of the Army develop a comprehensive strategic approach 

to human capital management and workforce planning. See U.S. General Accounting 

Office, Foreign Languages: Human Capital Approach Needed to Correct Staffing and 

Proficiency Shortfalls, GAO-02-375 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 31, 2002) and Foreign 

Languages: Workforce Planning Could Help to Address Staffing and Proficiency 

Shortfalls, GAO-02-514T (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 12, 2002). 

6

DOD Directive 3305.6, Special Operations Forces Foreign Language Policy (Jan. 4, 1993), 

assigns responsibility to the Commander, U.S. Special Operations Command, for 

implementing special operations forces’ foreign language training and reporting. 

Page 5 GAO-03-1026 Military Training 
personnel within the three service components: the U.S. Army Special 

Operations Command, the U.S. Naval Special Warfare Command, and the 

U.S. Air Force Special Operations Command.7

 The office is also 

responsible for running the Army’s SOF foreign language program. 

The Navy and Air Force SOF components are responsible for managing 

their own language-training programs. 

The foreign language program provides training for more than 12,000 SOF 

military personnel (about 28 percent of all 43,671 SOF personnel) who 

are required to acquire some level of proficiency in one or more foreign 

languages. Of these, about 90 percent (10,833) are in the U.S. Army Special 

Operations Command; more than half of them are in Army Reserve or 

National Guard units. (See table 1.) The remaining 10 percent of SOF 

personnel with language needs are in the U.S. Naval Special Warfare 

Command (1,128) and U.S. Air Force Special Operations Command (155).8 

The training consists of initial acquisition (becoming proficient in a new 

language), sustainment (maintaining a proficiency), and enhancement 

(raising a proficiency). It also includes a basic orientation to the customs 

and cultures of world regions where their languages are used. 

7

The operational units of the SOF service components run over 100 command language 

programs to provide initial, sustainment, and enhancement foreign language training for 

their people. 

8

Personnel who have language requirements in active-duty U.S. Army Special Operations 

Command units serve in special forces; those in Army Reserve and National Guard units 

serve in civil affairs, psychological operations, and special forces; those in active-duty 

U.S. Naval Special Warfare Command units serve as SEALS and in special boat units; and 

those in active-duty U.S. Air Force Special Operations units function in foreign internal 

defense. 

Page 6 GAO-03-1026 Military Training 
Table 1: Special Operations Forces Personnel Requiring Foreign Language Proficiency, by Service Component 

Require foreign language proficiency 

Total number of Percentage of total 

Number of SOF personnel SOF personnel 

Service Total number of Number of active- reserve/guard SOF with language with language 

component SOF personnela duty SOF personnel personnel requirement requirement 

U.S. Army Special 

Operations 

Command 26,804 4,475 6,358 10,833 

U.S. Naval Special 

Warfare Command 6,360 1,128 0 1,128 

U.S. Air Force 

Special Operations 

Command 10,507 155 0 155 

Total 43,671 5,758 6,358 12,116 100.0 

Source: Special Operations Forces Language Office. 

Note: As of September 2003. 

a

The total number of SOF personnel does not include civilians. Totals also do not include a Marine 

Corps detachment of 81 personnel assigned to the command. Seven of the 81 Marines have a 

language requirement, but their language training does not fall under the SOF language program. 

SOF personnel require foreign language skills in most of the special 

operations forces’ core tasks, such as unconventional warfare, 

counterterrorism, counter proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, 

civil affairs, psychological operations, information operations, and foreign 

internal defense. The command, in coordination with the organizations for 

which it provides forces, determines the languages, levels of proficiencies, 

and number of language-qualified personnel needed in its units through an 

assessment of the operational needs of the geographic unified commands.9 

Currently, SOF has requirements in more than 30 foreign languages, such 

as Chinese Mandarin, Modern Arabic, Indonesian, Korean, Persian-Farsi, 

Russian, and Spanish. 

In contrast with other intelligence or diplomatic foreign language training, 

SOF training places greater emphasis on oral communication skills 

(speaking and listening) than on nonverbal skills (reading and writing) in 

order to give SOF personnel the ability to communicate during operations 

in the field. The level of proficiency that needs to be achieved varies by 

9

Geographic unified commanders of the U.S. Central Command, U.S. European Command, 

U.S. Northern Command, U.S. Pacific Command, and U.S. Southern Command are 

responsible for the conduct of military operations in their respective world regions. 

Page 7 GAO-03-1026 Military Training 

89.4 

9.3 

1.3 
unit and mission and can range from limited skills necessary to understand 

and utter certain memorized phrases for immediate survival to more 

intermediate skills (e.g., the ability to deal with concrete topics in past, 

present, and future tenses) necessary to meet routine social demands and 

limited job requirements. For example, the Army’s Special Forces units 

(active-duty and National Guard), which account for about half of the 

Army personnel with a language requirement, generally need only a limited 

command of the language for immediate survival needs. Personnel who 

conduct psychological operations, foreign internal defense, and civil 

affairs missions generally need higher proficiency skills because of their 

greater contact and interaction with local civilians and military personnel. 

Although higher proficiency levels are desired, language is only one, and 

often not the highest, priority of the many skills that SOF personnel must 

acquire and maintain to effectively conduct their missions. Appendix II 

provides information on language proficiency levels and requirements. 

The special operations forces foreign language program is funded directly 

through the command’s annual budget.10 Funding for the program 

amounted to $9.5 million and $10.2 million in fiscal years 2002 and 2003, 

respectively, and it is projected to be $11.1 million in fiscal year 2004. 

The command provides portions of the program’s funding to each service 

component command to pay for its own respective foreign language 

training activities and to SOFLO to manage the program. The program’s 

funding constitutes a very small portion of the command’s annual budget, 

which is projected to be about $6.7 billion in fiscal year 2004. 

10The Nunn-Cohen Amendment to the DOD Authorization Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-661, 

which created the U.S. Special Operations Command, gave the command direct control 

over many of the fiscal resources necessary to pay, train, equip, and deploy special 

operations forces through the establishment of a separate major force program (a major 

budget category in DOD’s budget). 

Page 8 GAO-03-1026 Military Training 
Program Addresses 


Some Long-Standing 


Problems but 


Lacks a Strategic 


Planning Approach 


The command and SOFLO have taken several recent actions to begin 

addressing a number of long-standing problems in delivering and 

managing foreign language training to special operations forces. 

However, these actions are being taken without the benefit of a 

cohesive management framework, which incorporates strategic planning 

(a strategy and strategic plan with associated performance plans and 

reports), that would guide the program, integrate its activities, and 

monitor its performance. Such an approach would help the program 

maintain its present momentum, better manage its human capital 

challenges, and meet the language-training needs of SOF personnel as 

they take on new roles and responsibilities. 

Recent Actions Should 

Begin to Strengthen SOF 

Foreign Language Program 

New B.I.B. Contract 

Consolidates Language 

Training 

The command and SOFLO are taking several actions that begin to 

strengthen the foreign-language-training program for SOF forces. 

These actions include consolidating all language training under a 

single contractor, completing a long overdue assessment of language 

requirements, improving communication and coordination with all 

program stakeholders, developing a database to monitor language 

proficiencies and training, and looking for ways to make use of other 

foreign-language-training assets. According to a SOFLO official, these 

actions have been initiated in part by the command’s increased attention 

since September 11, 2001, to issues involving SOF language capabilities 

necessary to carry out core missions. 

For many years, the SOF foreign-language-training program’s service 

components and their units acquired language training through multiple 

contractors, encompassing a variety of private companies and universities. 

According to command officials, this practice led to inconsistencies in the 

type and quality of training, the response to meeting new or changing 

language requirements, and the way language training was acquired by 

individual service components. Various contractors used different 

instruction methods, and their training materials varied in quality. 

In September 2002, the command awarded all of its commercial language 

training to a single contractor, B.I.B. Consultants. Command officials 

told us that the new 5-year contract provides for greater standardization 

and a more consistent approach to language training and improves the 

way language training services are acquired throughout the command. 

Specifically, the new contract offers a universal, standardized training 

curriculum, an ability to customize instruction to meet specific needs; a 

way to attain language proficiencies faster; and a consistent monitoring of 

instruction and individual performance. The contractor, a business 

Page 9 GAO-03-1026 Military Training 
franchise of Berlitz International,11 plans to use its parent’s worldwide 

resources to provide SOF personnel with a variety of instruction 

services (such as classroom instruction, tutoring, and total immersion 

training in a live or virtual environment). Command officials also believe 

that the instruction method used by the contractor offers a way for SOF 

personnel to attain proficiency faster. To fully realize the benefits of the 

new contract, the command has required each of its service components 

and their units to use the contract to meet all their language-training 

needs, except when they take advantage of other government language 

resources, such as the Defense Language Institute. 

Some of the B.I.B. contract costs are higher than those in previous 

contracts because the command awarded the new contract on the 

basis of “best value” and gave management and technical factors higher 

consideration than price. A SOFLO official estimated that the annual 

contract cost is currently about $5.5 million to $6 million. If this figure 

remains the same each year, the total cost of the 5-year contract is 

projected to be about $30 million. A SOFLO official said that the total 

amount could be higher if SOF service components utilize more of the 

contract’s language services. This could happen as the service components 

and their units become more familiar with the contract services and as 

more SOF personnel return from current deployments and are able to 

access language training.

12 The official also said that some costs are higher 

than those in prior contracts for such language-training services as total 

immersion, in which students practice a language while living in another 

country or in a language-controlled isolated environment. Command 

officials believe the improved quality and delivery of language training 

outweigh any increased cost. 

B.I.B. Consultants appears to be meeting the expectations, including 

having its beginning language students meet their proficiency goals, set 

11B.I.B. Consultants is a small business franchise of Berlitz International established in 

1998. Its daily operations are located at the Berlitz Language Center, Orlando, Fla. Berlitz 

International is a worldwide provider of language training and cross-cultural services to 

government, private-sector industries, and nonprofit organizations. Founded in 1878, the 

company has more than 450 language centers in over 60 countries and is accredited by the 

American Council on Education and the Accrediting Council for Continued Education and 

Training. Because of the size and complexity of its contract with the command and the 

need for worldwide language training, B.I.B. has awarded a subcontract to Berlitz 

International to utilize its language services. 

12The contract has a maximum ceiling of $50 million over its 5-year life. 

Page 10 GAO-03-1026 Military Training 
Language Requirement 

Assessment Nears Completion 

out in its contract with the command. At the command’s initial quarterly 

contract review in March 2003, which covered the first 5 months of 

implementation, command and contractor officials focused on provisions 

in the contract and on procedural aspects, such as scheduling training, 

providing materials, and developing contacts. Command officials brought 

up several issues largely related to the cost and implementation of 

immersion training, classroom requirements for instructors and materials, 

and the delivery of tactical language training.13 On the basis of discussions 

among attendees and our observations at the review, none of the issues 

discussed appeared irresolvable, and most of them could be addressed by 

improved communications and more experience in understanding and 

executing the contract. For example, B.I.B. officials agreed to work with 

the service components to find ways to reduce some immersion training 

costs. A second contract review was held in August 2003. 

According to SOFLO, each of the command’s service components is using 

the language services provided under the B.I.B. contract, and the results 

from some initial acquisition classes indicate that students are achieving 

most of the proficiency goals. A B.I.B. contract manager told us that the 

company believes it is successfully implementing the provisions of its 

contract. The official said that B.I.B. Consultants and Berlitz International 

had formed a joint team in October 2002 to manage all contract operations 

necessary to provide the full range of training services requested by the 

government. The official said that B.I.B. had successfully delivered the 

services requested through July 2003 and had promptly addressed the few 

issues (e.g., higher costs for immersion training and the quality of some 

materials) that arose. Appendix III provides additional information on 

the status of the contract’s implementation at the command’s service 

components and our analysis of the preliminary results of the students’ 

performance under the new contract. 

In another action, the command is nearing the completion of a 

long-overdue assessment of its SOF foreign language requirements. 

The assessment is based on the operational requirements identified by 

the command in conjunction with the geographic unified commanders. 

It validates the languages, proficiency levels, and number of positions in 

each SOF unit that are needed to conduct special operations missions. 

13Tactical language training covers instruction in foreign language translations of specific 

military and technical words/terms used by SOF personnel in conducting missions. Such 

training is not a requirement of the B.I.B. contract. 

Page 11 GAO-03-1026 Military Training 
Communications and 

Coordination with Other 

Stakeholders Is Increasing 

The assessment is used by the SOF service components and SOFLO 

to determine future language-training requirements. Although such 

assessments are supposed to be conducted at least every 2 years, this is 

the first commandwide assessment since 1997. Command officials expect 

the assessment to be approved by the fall of 2003. 

SOFLO is in the process of expanding its communications and 

coordination with all of the stakeholders that are involved in delivering 

language training to SOF personnel. According to officials at the Navy 

and Air Force SOF components, the Defense Language Institute, and 

DOD headquarters, SOFLO officials have recently increased their 

contacts and visits with them to discuss language issues and ways to 

improve coordination. 

In addition, in December 2002, SOFLO reinstituted an annual language 

conference, which had not been held since 1997, that is designed to 

serve as a forum where SOF language issues can be discussed and 

resolved. Conference attendees included command representatives from 

headquarters and the service components and guests from the intelligence, 

academic, and other language-using communities who were invited to gain 

an appreciation of the differences between SOF requirements and other 

DOD language organizations and obtain their perspectives. SOFLO held 

another conference in August 2003. 

SOFLO also has recently developed an Internet-based Web site to provide 

information on SOF language training, including schedules of courses and 

other training opportunities; links to the latest directives, policies, and 

procedures; training help-aids; points of contacts; upcoming events; and 

information about the B.I.B. contract and other language resources. 

Although some difficulties remain with providing all SOF personnel with 

full access to the Web site, a SOFLO official told us that the Web site 

should help increase the program’s visibility and provide information 

about the command’s language training. 

Several Navy, Air Force, and command officials we talked with said that, 

over the years, SOFLO’s attention has focused largely on Army SOF 

language issues and has paid less attention to the Navy and Air Force 

language programs. These officials said that SOFLO’s recent efforts to 

increase its visits and contacts, hold an annual conference, and develop 

other communication tools should help to bring more balance and an 

increased “joint” focus to the program. Also, Defense Language Institute 

officials stated that the increased contacts between their organization and 

Page 12 GAO-03-1026 Military Training 
New Database Is Being 

Developed to Improve 

Tracking of Language Training 

and Readiness 

Program Explores Use of Other 

National Language Assets 

SOFLO would allow the institute to better understand SOF language needs 

and determine how it could best support the program. 

SOFLO is developing a central, standardized database to capture 

information on the language training and proficiency status of SOF 

personnel and to assess language capabilities across the services. A 

SOFLO official said that full implementation of the database is critical 

because there is currently no centralized commandwide system to track 

or access information related to language readiness or training. Service 

components and their units will be responsible for updating their portion 

of the data each quarter. In the future, SOFLO plans to develop a 

Web-based, data-entry capability to make updating easier and more 

user friendly. 

While most language-training needs are met by the new B.I.B. contract, 

SOFLO is exploring ways to expand its use of other national language 

resources to complement and provide additional support for its program. 

Such language assets can offer training and technology capabilities that 

are not available in the SOF program, include the following: 

• 	 The Defense Language Institute, which is DOD’s primary source of 

language instruction, has developed tactical language help-aids 

(e.g., pocket cards with key phases and words) that can be used to support 

language needs during military operations. The institute also provides 

real-time video language instruction for many military facilities around the 

world and is developing other distance/distributive-learning capabilities. 

Several SOF unit personnel told us that they value the institute’s resident 

training and would attend if their time allowed it. 

• 	 The Satellite Communications for Learning (SCOLA) broadcast network’s14 

programming provides access to most world languages, including less 

common languages that are not often taught in the United States. By 

watching and listening, students are able to actually experience the foreign 

culture and develop their language skills in a native real-life environment. 

The broadcasts also provide significant insight into the internal events of 

the various countries. The SOF unit personnel we spoke with said that the 

network helps students sustain language skills, learn dialects, and improve 

cross-cultural understanding. SCOLA officials told us that over the next 

5 years, they plan to increase the programming, provide Internet delivery 

14SCOLA is a nonprofit broadcast network based in McClelland, Iowa, that provides 

real-time transmission of copyright-free foreign news and cultural programming in over 

40 languages from about 60 countries via satellite. 

Page 13 GAO-03-1026 Military Training 
of services, improve their infrastructure to better respond to special 

program requests, and develop on-demand digital video archiving of 

past programs. 

• The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is developing new 

technologies to improve language translation capabilities. These 

include hand-held devices that provide limited real-time, face-to-face 

speech translation in the field. These devices initially were developed 

for users involved in medical first-response, force-protection, and 

refugee-reunification missions. SOF personnel used some of these 

devices during the recent Afghanistan operations. While not a substitute 

for individual language skills, these new technologies help bridge some 

language gaps in the field. 

SOF Language 


Program Lacks Cohesive 


Strategic Planning 


While these ongoing actions begin to improve and strengthen the foreign 

language program, SOFLO is implementing them without the benefit of a 

cohesive management framework that incorporates strategic planning 

(a strategy and strategic plan with associated performance plan and 

reports). According to a command directive, SOFLO is responsible for 

developing a long-range SOF language acquisition strategy.15 Although 

SOFLO has drafted a document outlining a strategy, this has not yet been 

approved. A SOFLO official told us that the strategy is expected to be 

issued by the end of 2003. 

Strategic planning is essential for this type of program because it provides 

the tools for applying good management practices. Such tools include a 

statement of the program’s results-oriented goals and objectives, the 

strategy it will use to achieve those goals and objectives, including key 

milestones and priorities, and the measurements (both quantitative and 

qualitative) that it will use to monitor and report on its progress, identify 

necessary corrective actions, and better manage risk. These tools also 

provide a mechanism to better align, establish clear linkages, and assign 

roles and responsibilities in the organizational structure and determine the 

program resources needed. Such planning requires top leadership support 

and, if done well, is continuous, involves all program stakeholders, and 

provides the basis for everything an organization does each day to support 

the achievement of its goals and objectives. 

15U.S. Special Operations Command Directive 350-10, Special Operations Forces Foreign 


Language Program (Nov. 14, 2001). This directive superseded the directive dated 


April 7, 1998, which also called for development of a long range SOF language strategy. 


Page 14 GAO-03-1026 Military Training 
Using strategic planning for SOF’s foreign language program would also 

be consistent with the general management principles set forth in the 

Government Performance and Results Act of 1993,16 which is the primary 

legislative framework for strategic planning in the federal government. In 

our prior reports and guidance, we have also emphasized the importance 

of integrating human capital considerations into strategic planning to 

more effectively plan and manage people’s needs and to address future 

workforce challenges, such as investments in training and developing 

people.17 We recently released an exposure draft that outlines a framework 

consisting of a set of principles and key questions that federal agencies 

can use to ensure that their training and development investments are 

targeted strategically.

18 Additionally, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, 

in recognition of the need for a more strategic approach to human capital 

planning, published the Military Personnel Human Resources Strategic 

Plan in April 2002 to establish military personnel priorities for the next 

several years. 

Strategic planning—a strategy and strategic plan with an associated 

performance plan and reports—would ensure that good management 

principles are being used to manage the program and achieve the 

results-oriented goals and objectives established for the program. Aligning 

this planning with DOD’s overall human capital strategy would further 

ensure that the pervasive human capital challenges facing the SOF foreign 

language program are considered in the broader context of overall DOD 

military personnel priorities. Without such a cohesive management 

framework, the program may lose its current momentum, and it may be 

unable to meet the new language-training needs that SOF personnel are 

likely to have as they take on expanded roles and responsibilities in 

counterterrorism and other military operations. 

16Pub. L. No. 103-62, Aug. 3, 1993. 


17We have issued several reports and guidance on strategic human capital management: 


U.S. General Accounting Office, High Risk Series: An Update, GAO-01-263


(Washington, D.C.: January 2001); Human Capital: Major Human Capital Challenges at 


the Departments of Defense and State, GAO-01-565T (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 29, 2001); 


Human Capital: A Self-Assessment Checklist for Agency Leaders, GAO/OGC-00-14G


(Washington, D.C.: September 2000) and Military Personnel: Oversight Process Needed to 


Help Maintain Momentum of DOD’s Strategic Human Capital Planning, GAO-03-237


(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 5, 2002). 


18See U.S. General Accounting Office, Human Capital: A Guide for Assessing 


Strategic Training and Development Efforts in the Federal Government (exposure draft),


GAO-03-893G (Washington, D.C.: July 2003). 


Page 15 GAO-03-1026 Military Training 
Approach Needed to 

Improve Access to 

Language-Training 

Resources 

The SOF foreign-language-training program continues to face ongoing 

challenges that limit the access that special operations forces have to take 

advantage of language-training opportunities. These challenges include 

more frequent and longer deployments for active-duty, reserve, and 

guard units. In addition, Army Reserve and National Guard members face 

further hurdles in getting access to training because of their geographic 

dispersion and part-time status. These members also receive lower 

monetary incentives for achieving required proficiencies and fewer 

training opportunities than active-duty members. Greater reliance on 

SOF personnel in combating terrorism may increase these challenges. 

Recognizing the underlying problems of access, SOFLO has begun 

looking into nontraditional training methods, such as distance/distributivelearning tools, including tools that provide on-demand “anytime anywhere” 

language training. But program officials are still at an early stage in 

their evaluations. 

Ongoing Challenges 

Affect Access to 

Language Training 

Acquiring and maintaining a proficiency in a foreign language takes 

continuous practice and, because it is a highly perishable skill, it can 

deteriorate rapidly without such practice. As a result, SOF personnel 

need to have a wide range of options to gain access to language-training 

resources at anytime and anywhere they are stationed or deployed. 

However, the SOF language program is facing several challenges that 

affect accessibility to language training. In recent years, both active-duty 

and reserve/guard SOF personnel have had less time for overall training 

because they have been deployed more frequently and for longer periods 

of time. In addition, when they have had time to train, their language 

training has often competed with other higher-priority training needs, such 

as marksmanship or nuclear-biological-chemical training. As a result, they 

have often been unable to complete the necessary language training to 

reach required proficiencies and to take the necessary tests to qualify in 

their respective language(s). 

Furthermore, Army Reserve and National Guard soldiers, who make up 

more than half of the total number of SOF personnel requiring language 

proficiency,19 face additional hurdles in finding time and gaining access to 

19Most of these soldiers are assigned to psychological operations and civil affairs units 

where language proficiencies are critical because of their close and frequent interaction 

with the local populace. 

Page 16 GAO-03-1026 Military Training 
language training. These soldiers are spread across 28 states and are often 

located at long distances from their unit’s facilities, making it difficult to 

get to centrally located training resources. In addition, they have fewer 

days available for training because of their part-time status. 

Moreover, because of their part-time status, Army Reserve and National 

Guard soldiers have lower monetary incentives to undertake language 

training than do active-duty personnel. According to SOFLO, active-duty 

Army SOF personnel receive foreign language proficiency pay, for 

example, of $100 each month if they attain a language proficiency level 

of 2.20 By contrast, Army Reserve and National Guard personnel get 

$13.33 each month if they attain the same proficiency because their 

proficiency pay is prorated according to the number of days they train.21 

Many of the more than 50 Army Reserve and National Guard soldiers we 

spoke with said that, despite the hurdles, they often undertake language 

training on their own time because of the value they place on foreign 

language skills in conducting their missions. They added that higher 

proficiency pay allowances would give them more incentive to study 

language and improve their proficiencies. In its May 2002 report, DOD’s 

Ninth Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation recommended that 

the services be authorized to pay their reserve and guard members the 

same monthly amount as active-duty members for maintaining proficiency 

in designated critical languages in order to provide consistency in the 

application of special pay between reserve and active-duty members.22 

20At a proficiency level of 2, an individual is capable of meeting routine social demands and 

limited job requirements and can deal with concrete topics in the past, present, and future 

tenses. Appendix II contains a description of the levels. 

21Foreign Language Proficiency Pay is provided to military personnel under 37 U.S.C. 316. 

The law specifies that reserve personnel who are not on active duty be paid at one-thirtieth 

of the monthly proficiency pay multiplied by the number of drills during a month (usually 

four). Therefore, if active-duty personnel receive $100 each month for language 

proficiency, reserve and guard personnel would receive $3.33 per drill ($100 divided by 30) 

or $13.33 each month for four drills. 

22The Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation is conducted every 4 years to assess 

the effectiveness of military pay and benefits in recruiting and retaining a high-quality 

force. See Department of Defense, Report of The Ninth Quadrennial Review of Military 

Compensation (Washington, D.C.: May 17, 2002). 

Page 17 GAO-03-1026 Military Training 
Additionally, a SOFLO official told us that current pay and allowance23 

funding levels for Army Reserve and National Guard units do not allow 

units to send more soldiers to language courses at the command’s 

language schools and unit programs and Defense Language Institute. The 

official said that this issue may become more of a concern in fiscal year 

2004, when the U.S. Army Recruiting Command will no longer fund the 

pay and allowance for initial-entry reserve soldiers going into civil affairs 

and psychological operations positions to attend the Defense Language 

Institute. The official said, however, that these proficiency pay and funding 

issues are not limited to foreign language training but are broader DOD 

issues that affect reserve and guard personnel throughout the military. 

These access constraints have prevented large numbers of SOF 

personnel from getting the necessary training (both initial and sustainment 

training) and taking the annual tests that are necessary to qualify in their 

language(s).24 As table 2 shows, for the quarter ending in March 2003, 

more than 11,200 SOF personnel, or 93 percent of the 12,116 of those who 

had a language requirement, needed to take either initial or sustainment 

training.25 According to a SOFLO official, these statistics may be higher 

than usual because of recent deployments to the Middle East and because 

of some administrative underreporting. Earlier quarters in 2002 show that 

about 75 percent of SOF personnel required training. As table 2 also 

indicates, most of the training needs for Navy SOF personnel were for 

initial language acquisition (83 percent of 1,128), while for Army and 

Air Force SOF members, the training needs were primarily for sustainment 

(85 and 64 percent, respectively). 

23Pay and allowance is a person’s basic pay, special pay, incentive pay, basic allowance for 

quarters, basic allowance for subsistence, and station per diem allowance for not more 

than 90 days. 

24These statistics are derived from SOFLO’s newly created database, and the mechanisms 

for collecting the data and ensuring reliability are still being worked out. 

25Language training data for the quarter ending in June 2003 was similar to the prior 

quarter: 11,180 SOF personnel, or 92 percent of the 12,116 of those who had a language 

requirement, needed to take either initial or sustainment training. 

Page 18 GAO-03-1026 Military Training 
Table 2: Number of Special Operations Forces Personnel Needing Language Training for Quarter Ending March 31, 2003 

Personnel needing 

initial training 

Personnel needing 

sustainment traininga 

Total personnel 

needing training 

Service component 

Total number of 

personnel requiring 

language skills Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 

U.S. Army Special 

Operations Command 10,833 806 7 9,240 85 10,046 

U.S. Naval Special 

Warfare Command 1,128 935 83 86 8 1,021 

U.S. Air Force Special 

Operations Command 155 42 27 99 64 141 

Total 12,116 1,783 15 9,425 78 11,208 

Sources: Special Operations Forces Language Office (data); GAO (analysis). 

Notes: Percentage totals may not add because of rounding. 

These statistics are derived from SOFLO’s newly created database, and the mechanisms for 

collecting the data and ensuring reliability are still being worked out. 

SOFLO also acknowledges that there may be some administrative underreporting of data. 

a

Includes personnel that have some language background but require additional training in a new 

language because of a change in assignment or language requirement. 

In reflection of this trend, the number of SOF personnel who have taken a 

proficiency test and have qualified in their respective language(s) within 

the last 12 months is low.26 As table 3 shows, in every subsequent quarter 

since the quarter ending September 2002, less than 25 percent of all Army, 

Navy, and Air Force SOF personnel with language requirements have been 

tested within the last 12 months and have met or exceeded the required 

proficiency to qualify in their respective language(s). This percentage 

decreased in the subsequent quarters. While acknowledging some 

administrative underreporting of data, a SOFLO official attributed the low 

qualification levels to the longer and more frequent deployments that 

hinder SOF personnel from getting the training they need to take and pass 

the language tests. The official said that the goal for proficiency varies by 

unit but that the units’ goals—having the total percentage of personnel in 

the unit meet the language requirement—in the command’s draft foreign 

language strategy for the largest groups of SOF personnel requiring 

language skills are 80 and 50 percent for U.S. Army Special Operations 

26SOF personnel are qualified after successfully passing the language proficiency test and 

remain qualified until the time of their next test 12 months later. 

Page 19 GAO-03-1026 Military Training 

93 

91 

91 

93 
Command active-duty and reserve component units, respectively. The 

proficiency goal for U.S. Naval Special Warfare Command and U.S. Air 

Force Special Operations Command units is 50 percent. 

Table 3: Personnel Meeting Language Proficiency Requirement from Quarters Ending September 2002 through June 2003 

Personnel meeting language requirementa 

Quarter ending 

Sept. 2002 Dec. 2002 March 2003 June 2003 

Service component 

Total number 

requiring 

language skills Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 

U.S. Army Special 

Operations 

Command 

Special Forces 

Active 3,756 1,720 46 1,524 41 387 10 540 

National Guard 1,731 486 28 602 35 0 0 0 

Civil Affairs/ 

Psychological 

Operations 

Active 675 163 24 185 27 24 4 213 

Reserve 4,627 243 5 296 6 94 2 105 

Other 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total 10,833 2,612 24 2,607 24 505 5 858 

U.S. Naval Special 

Warfare Command 

Total 1,128 125 11 52 5 107 9 57 

U.S. Air Force 

Special Operations 

Command 

Total 155 19 12 18 12 14 9 21 

Grand total 12,116 2,756 23 2,677 22 626 5 936 

Sources: Special Operations Forces Language Office (data); GAO (analysis). 

Notes: Percentage totals may not add because of rounding. 

These statistics are derived from SOFLO’s newly created database, and the mechanisms for 

collecting the data and ensuring reliability are still being worked out. 

SOFLO also acknowledges that there may be some administrative underreporting of data. 

a

Language requirement is satisfied if personnel have met or exceeded the required proficiency level in 

the required language(s) within the last 12 months. There is no distinction between personnel tested 

and failed and personnel not tested. 

Page 20 GAO-03-1026 Military Training 

14 

0 

32 

2 

0 

8 

5 

14 

8 
According to a SOFLO official, the number of SOF personnel annually 

tested in their respective language(s) could be increased if more certified 

oral testers were available to administer the Oral Proficiency Interview,27 

the scheduling of these tests was more flexible, and the services allowed 

greater use of these tests for language(s) qualification. While most SOF 

personnel qualify in their languages by taking the Defense Language 

Proficiency Test, an Oral Proficiency Interview can also be used when the 

Defense Language Proficiency Test is not available in a given language. 

The SOFLO official stated that SOF prefers the oral test when it can be 

used because of the importance placed on verbal skills in conducting 

SOF missions. However, the certified oral testers,28 who are normally 

members of the Defense Language Institute’s teaching staff, are sometimes 

unavailable because they are teaching or doing other primary duties. 

Coordinating the schedules of the institute’s staff and the SOF members 

to conduct the tests is also difficult. For example, while reserve and guard 

members are primarily available to take the tests on weekends during their 

unit’s drill time, it is not always possible for the institute to schedule the 

two testers that are required to administer the test in a given language 

during that same time. Additionally, the SOFLO official stated that a 

draft Department of the Army language regulation would allow use of the 

oral test even if a Defense Language Proficiency Test exists for a given 

language.29 The official said that SOFLO is working with the Navy and the 

Air Force to make similar changes to their language regulations. 

As DOD places greater emphasis on the capabilities of special operations 

forces, especially those related to counterterrorism, command officials 

told us that these forces are unlikely to experience any change in the 

frequency or length of their deployments. Although command officials said 

they are still unsure about the impact of these changes on SOF language 

needs, the problems of access are likely to continue. 

27DOD uses the Defense Language Proficiency Test and the Oral Proficiency Interview to 

measure an individual’s language skills. Both tests are administered through the Defense 

Language Institute. 

28Oral testers have native fluency in a language and are trained and certified by the Defense 

Language Institute to administer the Oral Proficiency Interview. 

29The Department of the Army is consolidating Army Regulations 611-6, Army Linguist 

Management, and 350-16, Total Army Language Program, into a single new Army 

language regulation. 

Page 21 GAO-03-1026 Military Training 
Distance/Distributive 

Learning Could Provide 

Better Access to 

Language Training 

According to SOFLO officials, some of accessibility challenges may 

be addressed by the development or expanded use of distance/distributivetraining tools, such as Internet-based training, multimedia technologies, 

and SCOLA foreign language broadcasts. While the new B.I.B. contract 

provides additional flexibility and training options, it focuses primarily 

on traditional methods of delivering language training, such as classroom 

training, one-on-one tutoring, and total-immersion training. This type 

of live, person-to-person instruction is the preferred method for most 

language learning. However, distance/distributive-learning tools, 

particularly those tools that deliver on-demand “anytime, anywhere” 

training, offer options that can be effectively adapted to the training needs 

of SOF personnel. 

Distance/distributive learning encompasses a wide range of delivery 

methods, including video tele-training, computer conferencing, and 

correspondence courses. In recent years, DOD has sought to develop 

the next generation of distance/distributive learning—advanced 

distributed learning30—which expands the range of options for providing 

DOD personnel with access to high-quality education and training, tailored 

to individual needs and delivered cost-effectively, whenever and wherever 

it is required. Advanced distributed learning includes Internet-based 

instruction, simulation, integrated networked systems, and digital 

knowledge repositories. DOD’s March 2002 Training Transformation 

Strategy31 emphasizes the use of such learning methodologies to 

ensure that training is readily available to both active and reserve 

military personnel, regardless of time and place. Table 4 shows the 

continuum of learning delivery methods from classroom to advanced 

distributed learning.32 

30Advanced distributive learning is instruction that does not require an instructor’s 

presence; can use more than one medium; and emphasizes the use of reusable content, 

networks, and learning management systems. 

31See Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Department of 

Defense, Strategic Plan for Transforming DOD Training (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 1, 2002). 

32For further information on the status of DOD’s advanced distributed learning programs, 

see U.S. General Accounting Office, Military Transformation: Progress and Challenges 

for DOD’s Advanced Distributed Learning Programs, GAO-03-393 (Washington, D.C.: 

Feb. 28, 2003). 

Page 22 GAO-03-1026 Military Training 
Table 4: Continuum of Learning Methods 

Right time, right place Anytime, anywhere 

Distance/distributive- Advanced distributed 

Classroom delivery learning delivery learning delivery 

method methods methods 

Instructor-led training • Video tele-training 

• Embedded training 

• Computer conferencing 

• Interactive television 

• Electronic classrooms 

• Interactive multimedia 

• 	 Computer-based 

training 

• Audio-graphics 

• Audiotapes/videotapes 

• 	 Correspondence 

courses 

• 	 Integrated networked 

systems 

• Integrated platforms 

• 	 Reusable learning 

objects 

• 	 Widespread 

collaboration 

• 	 Global knowledge 

databases 

• 	 Intelligent tutoring 

systems 

• Performance aiding 

• 	 Digital knowledge 

repositories 

• 	 Internet-based 

instruction 

• Virtual libraries 

• Simulation 

• Virtual classrooms 

Source: Defense Acquisition University. 

Note: The data displayed in the table are based on data provided in the Defense Acquisition 

University’s Strategic Plan 2002-2009 Training Transformation (T2), The Defense Acquisition 

University Road Map for e-Learning and On-Line Performance Support. 

SOFLO officials have begun evaluating some of the distance/distributivelearning options for language training that DOD has been developing for 

its own language-training programs. They told us that some of these efforts 

might be adaptable to the SOF program, as shown in the following: 

• 	 The Defense Language Institute, in collaboration with the National 

Cryptologic School, Foreign Service Institute, and the National Foreign 

Language Center, are developing an Internet-based learning support 

system, called LangNet, which provides language learners and teachers 

with access to on-line language materials. The Defense Language Institute 

is also expanding its video tele-training capabilities to provide students 

located throughout the world with real-time language instruction. 

• 	 The U.S. Army Intelligence Center at Fort Huachuca, Arizona, is leading an 

initiative called Broadband Intelligence Training System, or BITS, to use 

commercial broadband technology as a way to provide individuals with 

Page 23 GAO-03-1026 Military Training 
Internet-based tele-training at the unit or at home. SOFLO officials believe 

that this distance-learning tool shows the promise of delivering on-demand 

courseware in various languages with minimal technology requirements 

and being effective for initial acquisition training. 

• 	 The Defense Advance Research Projects Agency is developing a 

language-training simulation, which may be useful when speech 

recognition software hurdles are resolved. 

SOFLO also wants to expand the availability of individual multimedia 

tools, e.g., CD-ROM and DVD media and players, so that SOF personnel 

could use such tools at any location. Additionally, the Army’s John F. 

Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, 

is developing computer-based language courses that can be accessed 

through an Army learning site or through correspondence. Distributive 

learning was the principal theme of the command’s annual SOF language 

conference in August 2003, and SOFLO provided attendees with 

information on various language-oriented initiatives. 

A SOFLO official told us that distance/distributive-learning approaches 

are most beneficial for providing individuals who already have some 

language proficiency with sustainment training or enhancement training. 

While useful, these approaches are often not considered the best options 

for those individuals who need initial acquisition language training where 

person-to-person interaction is most desired. The official said that 

SOFLO is still in the early stages of evaluating and determining which 

distance/distributive-learning options are best suited to its program and 

the resources it will need to incorporate them into its program. 

Conclusions 
 While the U.S. Special Operations Command has taken several recent 

actions to begin improving the delivery of language training and the 

management of its foreign language program, these actions have been 

taken without the benefit of a cohesive management framework combined 

with strategic planning tools. At the forefront of the recent actions is a 

major shift in the way that the program provides language training for 

active-duty, reserve, and guard SOF personnel in the Army, Navy, and 

Air Force. Rather than using multiple contractors, the command has 

consolidated all of the training under a single contractor to provide a 

standardized curriculum and standardized training materials, more flexible 

delivery mechanisms, and consistent monitoring of student and teacher 

performance. These ongoing management actions address a wide range 

of issues, including the need for more coordination and communication 

within the program, the creation of a database to track language 

Page 24 GAO-03-1026 Military Training 
proficiencies and training requirements, and better utilization of other 

national language assets. However, because the program has not yet 

issued a strategy and developed the necessary strategic-planning tools 

(a strategic plan with an associated performance plan and reports) to 

carry it out, the value and impact of these disparate actions on the 

program as a whole is difficult to evaluate. As a first step, the command 

could issue a strategy for meeting SOF language requirements to establish 

its vision for language training across the command. As a second step, the 

command could use the strategic vision to develop necessary strategic 

planning tools to guide the program in the future. Such strategic planning 

with the support of top leadership would allow the program to determine 

what actions are needed to meet its overall goals and objectives; ensure 

that these actions are well integrated with each other; identify key target 

dates, priorities, and the resources needed to undertake them; develop 

performance measures to assess their progress and effectiveness; identify 

corrective actions; and better manage risk. It also should be aligned with 

DOD’s overall human capital efforts to more effectively address its 

personnel challenges. Without a cohesive management framework based 

on strategic planning, the program risks losing the momentum it has 

achieved so far and risk failing to meet the growing needs of special 

operations forces for increasingly critical foreign language skills. 

Despite continuing challenges in accessing training, the development of 

distance/distributive learning promises to offer SOF personnel greater 

access to language resources. While SOF personnel are often unable to 

take advantage of traditional, instructor-based language training because 

of long deployments and geographical dispersion, they could benefit from 

distance/distributive-training approaches that offer more flexibility and 

accessibility to language training, including on-demand, “anytime, 

anywhere” options. The use of distance/distributive learning would also 

provide a good complement to the training services offered by the 

command’s new contract. The command has an opportunity to support 

several promising DOD distance/distributive-learning initiatives under way 

with participation and resources. Also, DOD could consider expanding 

the use and availability of oral proficiency interview testing to provide 

additional opportunities for SOF personnel to test and qualify each year 

in their respective language(s). DOD could also consider changing the 

amount paid to Army Reserve and National Guard soldiers for foreign 

language proficiency to provide additional incentive for them to maintain 

and improve their language skills and provide more pay and allowance 

funds for these soldiers to allow more to attend language schools and 

pursue other venues for language training. Such changes might be a way to 

provide greater assurance that Army Reserve and National Guard soldiers 

Page 25 GAO-03-1026 Military Training 
take advantage of current language training and training that becomes 

available through the use of distance/distributive learning. 

To strengthen the management and delivery of foreign language training 

for special operations forces, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense 

direct the Commander of the U.S. Special Operations Command to 

Recommendations for 


Executive Action 


• 	 adopt a strategy for meeting special operations forces’ foreign language 

requirements and develop the necessary strategic-planning tools (a 

strategic plan with associated performance plan and reports) to use in 

managing and assessing the progress of its foreign language program and 

to better address future human capital challenges and 

• 	 incorporate distance/distributive-learning approaches into the program to 

improve the special operations forces’ access to language training, and if 

additional resources are required, to request them. 

In addition, the Secretary of Defense should evaluate current (1) foreign 

language proficiency pay rates and (2) pay and allowance funding levels 

for Army Reserve and National Guard personnel to determine if changes 

are needed to provide them with a greater incentive to undertake language 

study and allow for more personnel to attend language schools and other 

training venues. Furthermore, the Secretary of Defense should examine 

options for increasing the use and availability of oral proficiency foreign 

language testing to provide additional opportunities for SOF personnel to 

test and qualify in their respective languages. 

Agency Comments 


and Our Evaluation 


In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD concurred with all 

but one of our recommendations. DOD’s comments are reprinted in 

appendix IV. 

DOD did not agree with our recommendation that the U.S. Special 

Operations Command adopt a strategy and develop strategic-planning 

tools to strengthen the management and delivery of foreign language 

training for special operations forces. DOD stated in its comments that the 

command’s current draft of a SOF language strategy is in its infancy and 

needs to be properly reviewed through various DOD organizations before 

the Secretary of Defense could direct its adoption. Although nothing in our 

draft report was meant to suggest that the draft language strategy should 

be implemented without proper review, we clarified this recommendation 

to state that the command adopt “a strategy,” rather than any particular 

draft of a strategy. While we recognize that it may take some time for the 

Page 26 GAO-03-1026 Military Training 
command to prepare and approve such a document, we would note 

that the command has a longstanding internal requirement, which dates 

to 1998, for the program to have such a strategy. In its comments, DOD did 

not address the second part of the recommendation, which called for the 

development, in tandem with a strategy, of strategic planning tools to use 

in managing and assessing the program’s progress and address future 

human capital challenges. We continue to believe that the timely adoption 

of both a strategy and planning tools is an essential step for ensuring the 

effective management of the SOF foreign language program. 

DOD concurred with our other recommendations, specifically that the 

command incorporate distributed learning approaches into its SOF foreign 

language training; that the Secretary of Defense evaluate the current 

foreign language proficiency pay rates and pay and allowance funding 

levels for Army Reserve and National Guard personnel; and that the 

Secretary examine options to increase the use and availability of oral 

proficiency testing. 

We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional 


committees; the Secretary of Defense; the Commander of the U.S. Special


Operations Command; and the Director, Office of Management and 


Budget. We will make copies available to others upon request. In addition, 


the report will available at no charge on the GAO Web site at 


http://www.gao.gov. 


If you or your staff have any questions, please call me on (757) 552-8100. 


An additional GAO contact and other staff members who made key 


contributions to this report are listed in appendix V. 


Neal P. Curtin 


Director, Defense Capabilities 


and Management 


Page 27 GAO-03-1026 Military Training 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 


In conducting our review, we focused on the foreign language training 

that the U.S. Special Operations Command (the command) and its service 

component commands in the Army, Navy, and Air Force provide for 

special operations forces (SOF) personnel. This training is offered to 

active-duty, reserve, and National Guard SOF personnel who have foreign 

language proficiency requirements. We discussed SOF language issues 

with a variety of officials at the Department of Defense (DOD), service 

headquarters offices, the command’s headquarters offices, Special 

Operations Forces Language Office (SOFLO) and service component 

commands, the Defense Language Institute, and other stakeholders that 

provide or use the command’s language training. The organizations and 

offices that we contacted during our review are listed in table 5. 

Table 5: Organizations and Offices Contacted during Our Review 

Location Organization/Office contacted 

Washington, D.C., area Department of Defense 

• Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for C3I 

• 	 Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations, Low-Intensity Conflict, and 

Counter-terrorism 

• Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency 

• Departments of the Army and Air Force National Guard Bureau 

Department of the Army 

• Army Foreign Language Proponency Office 

• DOD Foreign Language Program Office 

• Defense Language Institute–Washington 

Department of the Navy 

• Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, Navy Foreign Language Office 

• Marine Corps Foreign Language Program Office 

Department of the Air Force 

• Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance and Information Operations Readiness Branch 

Department of State 

• Foreign Service Institute 

Fayetteville, N.C., area U.S. Army Special Operations Command, Fort Bragg, N.C. 

• Special Operations Forces Language Office 

• U.S. Special Forces Command 

• U.S. John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School 

• U.S. Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations Command 

• 3rd Special Forces Group 

• Elements of the 351st Civil Affairs Command 

Page 28 GAO-03-1026 Military Training 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

Location Organization/Office contacted 

Fort Walton Beach, Fla., area U.S. Air Force Special Operations Command, Hurlburt Field, Fla. 

• U.S. Air Force Special Operations School 

• 6th Special Operations Squadron 

Monterey, Calif., area 	 Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center 

Defense Manpower Data Center 

Norfolk, Va., area 	 Naval Special Warfare Group 2 

Naval Special Warfare Group 4 

Omaha, Nebr., area Satellite Communications for Learning, McClelland, Iowa 

Orlando, Fla., area B.I.B. Consultants, Inc. 

San Diego, Calif., area U.S. Naval Special Warfare Command, Coronado, Calif. 

• Naval Special Warfare Group 1 

Tampa, Fla., area U.S. Special Operations Command, MacDill Air Force Base, Fla. 

• Training, Doctrine, and Education Division 

Source: GAO. 

To assess the command’s recent actions to improve the management and 

delivery of its SOF foreign language training, we obtained documents 

and spoke with various stakeholders who use or support the training. In 

particular, we talked with officials at SOFLO about their responsibilities 

and the recent actions they have undertaken for the SOF language 

program. We reviewed DOD and command guidance, policies, speeches, 

reports, and other documents to increase our understanding of the 

program’s history and issues. We spoke with individuals in active-duty, 

reserve, and National Guard SOF units to learn their perspectives on 

obtaining language training and on achieving and retaining language 

proficiencies. Specifically, we did the following: 

• 	 We discussed the command’s new language services contract with 

command contracting officials and officials at each of the service 

components. We visited the contractor, B.I.B. Consultants, to discuss its 

use of teaching methodologies and management strategies to implement 

the contract. To obtain information about the first 11 months of language 

training (October 2002-August 2003) under the new contract, we 

(1) attended the command’s first quarterly contract reviews in March 

and August 2003; (2) discussed classes and other training activities with 

command and service components officials, B.I.B. Consultants and Berlitz 

International representatives, and language instructors and SOF students; 

and (3) conducted analyses of student end-of-course evaluations and 

proficiency results. 

Page 29 GAO-03-1026 Military Training 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

• 	 We talked with command headquarters and SOFLO officials about the 

command’s progress in assessing the SOF language requirements and 

in changing the way it communicates and coordinates (e.g., via annual 

conference, Internet-based Web site, etc.) with its various stakeholders. 

We attended the command’s 2003 language conference. Although we 

reviewed the process for determining SOF language requirements, we 

did not examine the specific criteria and rationale for decisions made 

for those requirements (e.g., languages, number of personnel needed, 

and proficiency levels required for units) in its recent assessment. 

• 	 To determine the extent to which the SOF language program uses other 

national language training assets, we obtained information from and met 

with officials at the Defense Language Institute, Satellite Communications 

for Learning (SCOLA), Defense Applied Research Projects Agency, and 

Foreign Service Institute. We also attended a SCOLA language conference 

that focused on the use of its broadcasts to support government language 

programs. 

• 	 To understand the use and merits of strategic planning and how it could 

benefit the SOF language program, we reviewed our prior work on 

strategic planning and strategic human capital management and the 

general management principles laid out in the Government Performance 

and Results Act of 1993. 

In conducting our review of student end-of-course evaluations to 

determine the satisfaction of students with classes taught by B.I.B. 

under the new contract, we requested student evaluations from the Army’s 

John F. Kennedy Center and School for the first quarter of fiscal year 2003 

and from the Naval Special Warfare Command’s Group 1 for the second 

quarter of fiscal year 2003. The Army’s school and the Navy’s Group 1 

provided evaluations from 11 (out of 22) classes and 3 (out of 3) classes, 

respectively. An Army school official told us that the contractor could not 

provide the evaluations for the other 11 classes we requested because the 

evaluations had been misplaced. As a result, our evaluation results may 

not be fully representative of the views of all students in all classes 

because the missing evaluations may have different responses from those 

that did respond and were provided to GAO. In conducting our analysis, 

we selected three questions from the student end-of course evaluations 

that, in our judgment, provided an indication of the overall effectiveness of 

the course, the instructor’s performance, and the usefulness of course 

materials. We also reviewed individual student proficiency scores from 

22 initial acquisition classes conducted at the Army’s school at Fort Bragg, 

North Carolina, to determine the performance of students in reaching 

end-of-course proficiency goals. 

Page 30 GAO-03-1026 Military Training 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

In identifying ways for the command to deal with challenges that limit 

accessibility to its foreign language training resources, we interviewed 

officials at SOFLO and the service component commands to understand 

the training requirements and resources and determine the challenges 

faced by SOF personnel in gaining accessing language training. We 

examined information from SOFLO’s language database1

 to assess the 

extent to which more frequent and longer deployments may affect SOF 

personnel’s access to the training they need to pass exams and qualify 

in their particular languages. We also talked with more than 50 members 

of Army Reserve and National Guard units to better understand their 

particular difficulties and limitations in getting training. We spoke 

with officials at the Defense Language Institute and visited their 

facilities to obtain information about their ongoing efforts to develop 

distance/distributed learning and advanced distributed-learning 

methods. We also met with Defense Applied Research Projects Agency 

officials to discuss how their new technologies could support SOF 

language-training needs. 

We performed our review from October 2002 through July 2003 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

1

SOFLO’s language database has been operational for only a short time, and the mechanisms for 

collecting the data and ensuring reliability are still being worked out. SOFLO also acknowledges that 

there may be some administrative underreporting of data. However, from our discussions with SOFLO 

officials about their current data collection and verification procedures, we believe the data to be 

sufficiently reliable. 

Page 31 GAO-03-1026 Military Training 
Appendix II: Language Proficiency Levels 

and Requirements 

The special operations forces foreign language-training program uses the 

foreign language proficiency scale established by the federal Interagency 

Language Roundtable.1

 The scale ranks individuals’ language skills in 

terms of their ability to listen, read, speak, and write in a foreign language. 

The scale has six basic proficiency levels, ranging from zero to 5; level 

zero indicates no language capability, and level 5 indicates proficiency 

in the language. A plus (+) designation is added if the proficiency 

substantially exceeds one skill level but does not fully meet the criteria for 

the next level. Table 6 shows the language capabilities required for each 

proficiency level. 

1

The Interagency Language Roundtable is an unfunded federal interagency organization 

established for the coordination and sharing of information about language-related 

activities at the federal level. It serves as the premier way for departments and agencies of 

the federal government to keep abreast of the progress and implementation of techniques 

and technology for language learning, language use, language testing, and other languagerelated activities. 

Page 32 GAO-03-1026 Military Training 
Appendix II: Language Proficiency Levels and 

Requirements 

Table 6: Foreign Language Capabilities at Proficiency Levels 

Language capabilitiesa 

Proficiency levelb Listening Reading Speaking 

0+b Understands certain memorized Reads alphabet or high-frequency Produces telegraphic utterances for 

utterances in areas of immediate 

needs with extra-linguistic cues. 

characters; recognizes some 

numbers and isolated words. 

immediate survival needs. 

Understands basic survival Reads simple, predictable material Maintains very simple 

utterances, simple questions and in print or type, identifies general conversations on familiar topics; 

answers on familiar topics, and topics. cannot produce continuous 

main ideas. discourse unless rehearsed. 

Understands routine conversations Reads simple, authentic, Handles routine, high-frequency, 

and discourse about familiar topics; straightforward material on familiar limited interactions and 

gleans all the facts. topics; uses contextual cues. conversations about current 

events, family, and common topics. 

Understands essentials of all Reads a variety of prose on Participates effectively in most 

speech; grasps opinion and unfamiliar subjects that may formal and informal conversations 

inferences. include opinions, hypothesis, and about practical, social, and 

analysis. professional topics within a shared 

context. 

Understands all forms and styles of Reads fluently and accurately all Uses the language fluently and


speech, even some nonstandard styles and forms; grasps full accurately for all purposes. 


dialects; develops and analyzes ramifications of texts within wider 


argumentation. context. 


Understands extremely difficult and Reads very difficult and abstract Commands language with 

abstract speech and how natives prose. complete flexibility and intuition; 

think as they create discourse.	 pronunciation consistent with that 

of an educated native speaker. 

Source: Federal Interagency Language Roundtable. 

a

Language proficiency levels and capabilities are based on the Interagency Language Roundtable 

standards. The table does not include a description of the capabilities for writing. 

b

The 0+ exceeds the basic 0 proficiency level. Zero-level proficiency indicates no capabilities in a 

foreign language. 

Language proficiency levels are established for SOF personnel during 

the U.S. Special Operations Command’s biennial assessment of language 

requirements, which is done in conjunction with geographic unified 

commanders. The assessment identifies the languages, the proficiency 

levels, and the number of individuals needed with these skills in the 

commanders’ geographic regions. Table 7 shows the required (minimum) 

and the desired proficiency levels for each service component and 

specialty. For example, Army SOF members who work in civil affairs 

and psychological operations where they frequently interact with local 

populations require a proficiency level of 2 for listening, reading, and 

speaking. Army Special Forces, on the other hand, require only a level 0+ 

to perform their missions, although a higher standard is desired. 

Page 33 GAO-03-1026 Military Training 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 
Appendix II: Language Proficiency Levels and 

Requirements 

Table 7: U.S. Special Operations Command Proficiency Standards for Service Components 

Proficiency level 

Requireda Desired 


Service component and specialty Listen/Read/Speak Listen/Read/Speak 

All/Intelligence 2/2/2 

U.S. Air Force Special Operations Command 2/2/2 

U.S. Naval Special Warfare Command 2/2/2 

U.S. Army Special Operations Command (Civil Affairs) 2/2/2 

U.S. Army Special Operations Command (Special Forces) 0+/0+/0+ 

U.S. Army Special Operations Command (Psychological Operations) 2/2/2 

Source: Special Operations Forces Language Office. 

Note: Required and desired proficiency levels were established by the command’s current 

assessment of SOF language requirements. 

a

Personnel can meet the required proficiency by taking the Defense Language Proficiency Test 

(listen/read), or an Oral Proficiency Interview (speak) when the Defense Language Proficiency Test 

is not available in a given language. 

Page 34 GAO-03-1026 Military Training 

3/3/3 

2/2/2 

2/2/2 

2/2/2 

1/2/2 

2/2/2 
Appendix III: Status of the Language Services 

Contract between the U.S. Special Operations 

Command and B.I.B. Consultants 

In accordance with its language services contract with the U.S. Special 

Operations Command, B.I.B. Consultants is providing various types of 

training for special operations forces personnel at each of the command’s 

service components. As shown in table 8, this training ranges from 

language instruction, to beginning students with no foreign language 

proficiency, to those students who have acquired some proficiency. It 

consists of language study conducted in a traditional classroom setting; 

one-on-one instructor/student training; and total immersion training, 

where students practice their language(s) in a live or virtual environment.1 

The training also includes an orientation of the customs, culture, and 

common phrases for the area where the student’s language is used. 

Table 8: Foreign Language Training Provided by B.I.B. Consultants Contract 

Training type Purpose/Audience Environment 

Initial acquisition Beginning training for students that have no measurable • Traditional classroom setting. 

proficiency level in a particular foreign language. • Home-based, one-on-one 

instruction. 

Sustainment Training for students that already have acquired a specified • Traditional classroom setting. 

proficiency level and need only to maintain that level. • Home-based, one-on-one 

instruction. 

• Live or virtual immersion training. 

Enhancement Training to raise a student’s proficiency level. • Traditional classroom setting. 

• 	 Home-based, one-on-one 

instruction. 

• Live or virtual immersion training. 

Survival/Cultural orientation 	 Training to provide a basic understanding of customs, culture, • Traditional classroom setting. 

and common phrases for a world region. Conducted when • Home-based, one-on-one 

course duration is highly constrained by the training time instruction. 

available. • Live or virtual immersion training. 

Source: Special Operations Forces Language Office. 

During the first 9 months (October 2002 to July 2003) of the contract, 

B.I.B. training varied at each of the SOF service components. For example, 

from October 2002 to July 2003, B.I.B. conducted over 40 initial acquisition 

language classes for more than 500 students in 13 different languages at 

the Army’s John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School at 

1

Total immersion in a live environment involves students’ going to the country where the 

language to be learned is spoken. Total immersion in a virtual environment involves 

training in an isolated environment in the United States, and only the language to be 

learned is spoken. 

Page 35 GAO-03-1026 Military Training 
Appendix III: Status of the Language Services 

Contract between the U.S. Special Operations 

Command and B.I.B. Consultants 

Fort Bragg, North Carolina. From January through February 2003, B.I.B. 

also provided initial acquisition language training for 10 students in three 

languages (3 classes) at the Navy’s Special Warfare Command’s Group 1 

at Coronado, California. According to the Air Force command language 

program manager, B.I.B. is expected to start providing initial acquisition 

language training for Air Force SOF personnel at Hurlburt Field, 

Florida, where the Air Force recently established a language-training 

lab. According to a B.I.B. contract manager, B.I.B. has also provided 

16 immersion sessions in various languages for students in each of the 

service components as of the end-of-July 2003 (9, 6, and 1, respectively, for 

the Navy, Army, and Air Force). 

According to a Special Operations Forces Language Office official, 

students’ proficiency scores after completing B.I.B.-taught classes at the 

Army’s school are about the same as those achieved under prior contracts. 

Additionally, six students in an accelerated pilot class achieved scores that 

met or exceeded the minimum proficiency level.2

 Our review of students’ 

proficiency scores from all the initial acquisition classes (a total of 22), 

including the Spanish pilot course that began at the Army school during 

the first quarter of fiscal year 2003, showed that 6 percent (11 students) 

of the 171 students did not meet the 0+ requirement for listening and 

2 percent (4 students) did not meet the 0+ requirement for reading. 

(See fig. 1.) However, all of those students did meet the alternate goal, 

which is to attain at least a 0+ on an Oral Proficiency Interview. Although 

only a small number of Navy SOF personnel have received training under 

the B.I.B. contract, a Naval Special Warfare Command Group 1 official 

said that students’ proficiency scores from the first three B.I.B. initial 

acquisition language classes (a total of 10 students) conducted from 

January through February 2003 exceeded the results of classes conducted 

under previous contracts. 

2

The accelerated pilot class in Spanish was conducted for 10 weeks instead of the regular 

18 weeks with the goal of having students achieve language proficiency faster. B.I.B. 

Consultants, the U.S. Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School, and 

SOFLO plan to conduct additional accelerated pilot classes in other languages. 

Page 36 GAO-03-1026 Military Training 
Appendix III: Status of the Language Services 

Contract between the U.S. Special Operations 

Command and B.I.B. Consultants 

Figure 1: Student Proficiency Score Results for Listening and Reading for Initial Acquisition Language Courses at the Army’s 

John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School for the First Quarter of Fiscal Year 2003 

Note: Percentages may not total 100 percent because of rounding. 

We analyzed student end-of-course evaluations for about half of the 

initial acquisition classes offered at the Army’s school during the first 

quarter of 2003.3

 The evaluations were designed and administered by 

B.I.B. Students were asked to rate their satisfaction with (1) their 

progress, (2) the instructor, and (3) the usefulness of the materials. As 

table 9 shows, most students said they were extremely or very satisfied 

with their instructor’s performance. Most students also expressed some 

satisfaction with their progress and the usefulness of course materials. 

However, it should be noted that 13 out of 77 evaluations indicated 

dissatisfaction with their progress, and 17 out of 77 evaluations also 

3

We requested end-of-course evaluations from all SOF language classes conducted by B.I.B. 

Consultants during the first quarter of fiscal year 2003 at the U.S. Army Special Warfare 

Center and School, but the Army’s school provided only 77 student end-of-course 

evaluations for 11 (of a total of 22) classes for 7 (of a total of 11) languages. Because we 

were not able to obtain all student end-of-course evaluations, the missing evaluations may 

have different responses from those that did respond and were provided to GAO. 

Page 37 GAO-03-1026 Military Training 
Appendix III: Status of the Language Services 

Contract between the U.S. Special Operations 

Command and B.I.B. Consultants 

indicated dissatisfaction with the usefulness of the course materials. 

At the Army school, the Army, as required under the B.I.B. contract, 

provides course materials. 

Table 9: Student Evaluations Responses from Some Initial Acquisition SOF Language Classes at the U.S. Army John F. 

Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School, Fort Bragg, North Carolina, during the First Quarter of 2003 

Initial acquisition language classes 

A B C D Ea F G Hb I J K L M 

Total number of classes 22 3 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 

Total number of students 180 20 7 16 7 6 16 6 24 8 21 8 41 

Number of classes with evaluations 

obtained 11 3 1 2 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 

Number of evaluations obtained 77 20 7 16 7 6 15 6 0 0 0 0 

Student evaluation responsesc 

Student progress 

Extremely/Very satisfied 30 7 0 5 0 5 8 5 

Somewhat satisfied 34 6 5 10 5 1 6 1 

Not very/not at all satisfied 13 7 2 1 2 0 1 0 

Instructor’s performance 

Extremely/Very satisfied 64 18 2 13 6 6 13 6 

Somewhat satisfied 8 1 3 3 0 0 1 0 

Not very/not at all satisfied 4 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 

Usefulness of materials 

Extremely/Very useful 24 2 1 6 2 3 6 4 

Somewhat useful 35 3 6 10 5 3 6 2 

Not very/not at all useful 18 15 0 0 0 0 3 0 

Sources: U.S. Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School, U.S. Army Special Operations Command (data); GAO (analysis). 

Legend: A = All languages, B = Arabic, C = Korean, D = Russian, E = Serbian, F = Turkish, G = Thai, 

H = Spanish pilot, I = French, J = German, K = Indonesian, L = Pashtu, M = Spanish. 

Note: We were not able to obtain student end-of-course evaluations for 11 classes in French, 

German, Indonesian, Spanish (other than the Spanish pilot class), and Pashtu, and have therefore 

excluded these classes from our analysis. 

a

One student (in a Serbian class) did not respond to “instructor satisfaction” question. 

b

Spanish pilot class was taught using an accelerated class schedule. 

c

Student evaluations have been aggregated for languages where more than one section of the same 

class was taught. 

Page 38 GAO-03-1026 Military Training 

5 

0 

0 
Appendix III: Status of the Language Services 

Contract between the U.S. Special Operations 

Command and B.I.B. Consultants 

We also analyzed student end-of-course evaluations for three classes 

taught by B.I.B. at the Naval Special Warfare Command’s Group 1, 

Coronado, California, during the second quarter 2003.4

 Unlike the Army, 

which used B.I.B.’s evaluation, the Navy designed and administered its 

own evaluation. In these evaluations, students were also asked to evaluate 

their courses in three areas: sufficient instruction time; instructor’s ability 

to effectively teach, and the quality of instructional material. As table 10 

indicates, all responses rated the three areas as “excellent or good,” with 

the exception of the Indonesian class where two out of three students 

rated the “quality of materials” as “average.” Although only one of the 

three classes used B.I.B. course materials as required by the contract, 

classes that started in July 2003 are using the B.I.B.-provided materials. 

4

We requested student end-of-course evaluations for all classes conducted at the Naval 

Special Warfare Command’s Group 1 by B.I.B. in the second quarter of fiscal year 2003. 

We received evaluations for 9 students (of a total of 10) from three classes across 

three languages. 

Page 39 GAO-03-1026 Military Training 
Appendix III: Status of the Language Services 

Contract between the U.S. Special Operations 

Command and B.I.B. Consultants 

Table 10: Student Evaluations Responses from Initial Acquisition SOF Language Classes at Naval Special Warfare Command, 

Group I, Coronado, California, during the Second Quarter of 2003 

Initial acquisition language classes 

All languages Frencha Indonesian Tagalog 

Number of classes 3 1 1 

Number of students 10 4 4 

Number of classes with evaluations obtained 3 1 1 

Number of evaluations obtained 9 4 3 

Student evaluation responses 

Sufficient instruction time 

Excellent/good 8 3 3 

Average 0 0 0 

Fair/poor 0 0 0 

Instructor’s performance 

Excellent/good 9 4 3 

Average 0 0 0 

Fair/poor 0 0 0 

Quality of materials 

Excellent/good 7 4 1 

Average 2 0 2 0 

Fair/poor 0 0 0 0 

Sources: Naval Special Warfare Command, Group I, Coronado, Calif., (data); GAO (analysis). 

a

One student did not respond to the question, “sufficient instruction time.” 

We did not review student evaluations at the U.S. Air Force Special 

Operations Command because no classes were completed during the time 

we conducted our work. 

Page 40 GAO-03-1026 Military Training 

1 

2 

1 

2 

2 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

2 
Appendix IV: Comments from the 

Department of Defense 

Note: Comments were 

received from the 

Department of Defense 

on September 26, 2003. 

Page 41 GAO-03-1026 Military Training 
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Defense 

Note: Page numbers in 

the draft report may differ 

from those in this report. 

Page 42 GAO-03-1026 Military Training 
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Defense 

Page 43 GAO-03-1026 Military Training 
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Contact Clifton E. Spruill (202) 512-4531 

Acknowledgments 	 In addition to the individual named above, Mark J. Wielgoszynski, 

Marie A. Mak, Corinna A. Wengryn, Nancy L. Benco, and Deborah Long 

made key contributions to this report. 

(350276) Page 44 GAO-03-1026 Military Training 
GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of 

Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities 

and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal 

government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; 

evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed 

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government 

is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older 

products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents 

using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, 

including charts and other graphics. 

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site 

daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail 

this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to e-mail 

alerts” under the “Order GAO Products” heading. 

Order by Mail or Phone 	 The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A 

check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. 

GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a 

single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. General Accounting Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: 	 Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: To Report Fraud, 

W Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm aste, and Abuse in E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov 

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

Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 Public Affairs 	 U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548