United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee

on Military Personel, Committee on

National Security, House of

Representatives

June 1996 BASIC TRAINING

Services Are Using a

Variety of Approaches

to Gender Integration

G O A

years

1921 - 1996

GAO/NSIAD-96-153

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

National Security and

International Affairs Division

B-271797 

June 10, 1996

The Honorable Robert K. Dornan

Chairman, Subcommittee on Military Personnel

Committee on National Security

House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Chairman:

In response to your request, we have reviewed enlisted basic training to

determine the (1) extent to which the services are conducting

gender-integrated basic training; (2) changes that were made to

accommodate this training and the cost of the changes; (3) pass/fail rates

(or other measures of performance) for gender-integrated basic training

compared with those for segregated training; and (4) training regimen,

results, and issues related to the current gender-integrated basic training

compared with the Army’s previous experiences with gender-integrated

basic training.

Background Women have traditionally played a role in the military services. In recent

years, many more career fields have opened to women, and their

assignment opportunities have considerably expanded. In the past, all of

the services had different programs for basic training for men and women

and conducted the training for the two groups separately. More recently,

however, the services have adjusted their philosophy of basic training for

women and now have programs more closely aligned with those of the

men. During fiscal year 1995, the services trained 179,068

recruits—18 percent of whom were women. Women comprised 18 percent

of the 75,616 basic training graduates in the Army, 20 percent of the 40,813

graduates in the Navy, 24 percent of the 30,515 graduates in the Air Force,

and 5 percent of the 32,124 graduates in the Marine Corps.

Results in Brief The military services are employing several different approaches to the

integration of men and women during basic training. These approaches

range from using the same program of instruction for men and women and

integrating some training units to using somewhat different programs of

instruction and providing separate training. The costs associated with

gender integration have been low. In fact, the Army is the only service that

has incurred expenses to accommodate gender-integrated basic training,

spending approximately $67,000 to modify barracks. No staffing or

Page 1 GAO/NSIAD-96-153 Basic Training
B-271797 

curriculum changes have been made to accommodate integrated basic

training.

Although data to compare the performance of trainees in

gender-integrated units with those in single-gender units is not available in

all of the services, studies of the impact have been done for the Navy and

the Army. A 1992 study conducted for the Navy reported no impact on

objective performance measures and improvement in teamwork measures

for both men and women trained in gender-integrated units.1

 A recently

completed study of gender integration in the Army reported that the

performance of women improved in gender-integrated training units while

the performance of men was not degraded.2

Although the Army implemented gender-integrated basic training to some

extent in the late 1970s to the early 1980s, the Army has no records from

that period to compare with its current program.

Degree of Trainee

Gender Integration

Varies

The services use different approaches to integrating men and women in

their basic training programs. The result is a varying degree of integration

and interaction between men and women during their initial military

training, depending on the branch of service. In the Army, the Navy, and

the Air Force, women and men follow the same program of instruction,

with differences in medical examinations, hygiene classes, and physical

fitness test standards. The degree of integration within training units in

these services, however, does vary. In the Marine Corps, although large

portions of the program of instruction are the same for men and women,

some are different, and men and women are trained separately. Table 1

compares some aspects of the services’ basic training programs.

1

Jerry C. Scarpate and Mary Anne O’Neill, “Evaluation of Gender Integration at Recruit Training

Command.” Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute, July 1992.

2

Dr. Zita M. Simutis and Dr. Jacqueline A. Mottern, “Basic Combat Training in a Gender-Integrated

Environment.” Briefing for Assistant Secretary of the Army (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) by the

Army Research Institute, January 25, 1996.

Page 2 GAO/NSIAD-96-153 Basic Training
B-271797 

Table 1: Selected Aspects of the

Services’ Basic Training Programs

Trained in integrated

operating units,

fiscal year 1995

Figures in percent

Service

Program of

instruction for

men and women

Integrated at

operating level

of training Women Men

Army Samea Yes 100 49

Navy Samea Yes 100 25

Air Force Samea No 0 0

Marine Corps Different No 0 0

aThe only differences were in medical examinations, hygiene classes, and physical fitness test

standards.

The Army and the Navy basic recruit training programs are nearly identical

for men and women, and in gender-integrated units, trainees are mixed at

the operating level. The only differences are that male and female trainees

are berthed separately, have different medical examinations and hygiene

classes, and must meet different physical fitness test standards. In fiscal

year 1995, the Army trained all of its women and 49 percent of its men in

gender-integrated units composed of 20 to 50 percent women. Many of the

men trained in all-male units were in combat arms specialties that are

closed to women. In the same year, the Navy trained all of its women and

25 percent of its men in gender-integrated units composed of about

50 percent of each gender. In forming training units, the Navy considers it

important not to have only a few of either gender in a group because those

trainees might feel isolated or intimidated. Therefore, because the number

of men that can be trained in integrated units is limited by the number of

women available to train with them, some units must be all male.

As in the Navy and the Army, the Air Force’s male and female trainees

follow the same program of instruction, with differences in the medical

examinations, hygiene classes, and physical fitness test standards.

However, the operating level of recruit training, the flight, is single gender.

Although each flight is paired with a “brother” or “sister” flight and the

pairs often train side by side, flight integrity is maintained during training.

Thus, male and female flights may be at the marksmanship range or in an

auditorium together, but they do not mix. The exception to this is the

physical conditioning program, where men and women are intermingled.

The Marine Corps does not conduct gender-integrated basic training. Men

and women are trained separately, although large portions of the program

Page 3 GAO/NSIAD-96-153 Basic Training
B-271797 

of instruction are the same. Only the men are trained in combat hitting

skills and pugil sticks. Men also receive a 24-day course of Marine combat

training after their basic training, whereas women receive an additional

week of basic training that incorporates an abbreviated course of Marine

combat training. Marine Corps officials told us they planned to examine

the Marine combat training program for men and women and expected to

report their findings to the Commandant in June 1996.

Cost of Gender

Integration Has Been

Low

After examining facilities and staffing costs for basic training and changes

to the curriculum in each of the services, we concluded that the cost of

gender integration has been low. At Fort Jackson, South Carolina, the

Army spent approximately $67,000 to modify its oldest barracks to house

gender-integrated basic training units. The modifications included

installing partitions between the male and female berthing areas and

creating separate bathrooms for men and women by dividing each

common use bathroom into two and adding shower heads and latrines.

The newer barracks needed no modifications.

The Navy spent over $2 million to modify facilities to accommodate

women at its basic training location at Great Lakes, Illinois, including

changes to barracks, medical facilities, and training buildings. However,

the Navy made these modifications in response to base realignment and

closure decisions to consolidate all recruit training at one location. The

changes were not due to the decision to integrate training.

Although the ratio of trainees to drill instructors varies considerably

among the services, it is consistent between integrated and segregated

training units in the same service. The number of trainees for each drill

instructor averages 39 for the Air Force, 28 for the Navy, 19 for the Army,

and 17 for the Marine Corps.

Although each service regularly reviews and modifies its basic training

program of instruction, none of the services has made changes because of

gender integration.

Limited Data

Indicates Gender

Integration Does Not

Erode Performance

Data with which to compare the effectiveness of integrated training and

segregated training was limited due to curriculum changes, a limited

history of integration, and few records documenting trainees’

performance. The data that is available, however, indicates that

Page 4 GAO/NSIAD-96-153 Basic Training
B-271797 

gender-integrated basic training programs do not negatively affect the

performance of trainees.

The Marine Corps does not conduct integrated training and therefore has

no comparative data. The Air Force provided some performance data for

its trainees by gender but was unable to provide data that could be used to

compare the performance of training units. Thus, comparisons of same

gender pairs of flights with opposite gender pairs could not be made.

In a 1992 study conducted for the Navy, the Defense Equal Opportunity

Management Institute found that gender-integrated training had no impact

on the results of performance tests but improved teamwork. Since that

time, the Navy has made significant changes in its basic training program

of instruction, placing greater emphasis on physical training. The Navy

was unable to provide data to compare the performance of trainees in

integrated units with those in segregated units using this new program of

instruction.

In 1996, the Army Research Institute (ARI) concluded that the performance

of women improved in gender-integrated training units while the

performance of men was not degraded. This conclusion was based on a

3-year study that dealt with measures of performance such as physical

fitness, marksmanship, and individual proficiency test results.

Additionally, the Army provided some performance data for fiscal years

1993-95 for about 80 percent of the trainees from an all-male training

location that we compared with ARI’s results from the gender-integrated

companies. Officials at the all-male location told us that they did not have

information on the other 20 percent of their trainees for that year. They

said, however, that they believed the 80 percent was representative of the

whole. The information they provided indicates that the pass rates for

male trainees in the gender-integrated companies exceeded the pass rates

for trainees at the all-male location in those categories of physical

performance for which data was available—the Army physical fitness test

and the basic rifle marksmanship test (see table 2).

Page 5 GAO/NSIAD-96-153 Basic Training
B-271797 

Table 2: Pass Rates for Men in All-Male

and Integrated Army Training Units

(fiscal years 1993-95)

Army physical fitness test

Basic rifle marksmanship

qualification

Figures in percents

Fiscal year

All-male

location

Integrated

units

All-male

location

Integrated

units

1993 97 98 97 98

1994 89 99 97 98

1995 88 99 96 98

Data to Compare

Current and Previous

Army

Gender-Integrated

Programs Does Not

Exist

Although the Army conducted gender-integrated basic training in the late

1970s and early 1980s, the Army has no records of those programs or their

results to compare with those on its current program and results.

However, we did find reports of a 1976 Army test of the same basic

training program of instruction for men and women.3

Before September 1976, women entering the Army received different

training from that of their male counterparts. From September to

November 1976, the Army tested a common program of instruction for

men and women. Although men and women received the same training for

the test period, it was conducted in single-gender units. According to a

report on the results of this test, the program of instruction used was

similar to that previously used for basic training for men and was very

different from the one previously used for women. The study found that

women met the standards in every area except the physical fitness

standards (men’s standards were used for both men and women) and that

those standards could be modified for the women without changing the

content of the training or reducing the value of the training received.

Problems observed during the test were as follows:

• The uniforms the women were issued for the training were inadequate,

and women were issued men’s boots that often did not fit their feet. Also,

the field jackets, although made for women, were not as warm and did not

fit as well as those issued to the men.

• Male instructors were inadequately prepared to train women. They tended

to be overprotective and assumed women would not meet the standards.

We could not determine what actions were taken as a result of the study.

However, some Army training locations did continue to conduct

3

Performance data is reported in Basic Initial Entry Training Test Report, Department of the Army,

December 30, 1976. Attitudinal data is reported in Basic Initial Entry Training Test Attitude Survey,

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, September 1978.

Page 6 GAO/NSIAD-96-153 Basic Training
B-271797 

gender-integrated basic training programs until the early 1980s, when the

Army ended such programs. The Army could provide no documentation of

these early efforts at gender integration, their results, or the reasons the

efforts were stopped. The Army officials with whom we spoke had various

opinions as to the results of the earlier efforts and the reasons the Army

discontinued them. Some said the results were not good, which led the

Army to stop the training. Others said the results were good and that the

training was stopped because of a lack of support within the Army.

In 1993, the Army again began integrating basic training and has avoided

many of the problems identified in the 1976 study. For example, different

physical fitness standards are used for men and women, all trainees’

clothing appears to be more suitable for the weather, women are issued

boots suitable for them, and athletic shoes are used by all trainees for

physical training. As noted previously, the 1996 ARI study of the current

gender-integrated program indicates that the training is effective.

However, the training of instructors is still an issue, as ARI reports that

many drill sergeants believe that their training course does not adequately

prepare them to conduct gender-integrated basic training. Army officials

told us the Army was currently modifying its training course for drill

sergeants to incorporate lessons learned from the ARI study. The officials

said they expected the modified course to better prepare the drill

sergeants to conduct gender-integrated basic training.

Although they were unable to specifically cite problems in the earlier

gender-integrated basic training program, Army officials told us that many

factors had positively affected the training environment since then,

including improvements in training equipment and facilities, advances in

sports medicine, the use of athletic shoes for physical training, and

increased roles for women in the military and society in general.

Recommendation To evaluate the effectiveness of each service’s approach to the integration

of recruit training, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the

services to retain and analyze comparative performance data for men and

women in single-gender and gender-integrated training units.

Agency Comments In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD concurred with the findings

and recommendation. DOD stated it would instruct each of the services to

retain and analyze comparative performance data for men and women in

single-gender and gender-integrated training units over a 1-year time

Page 7 GAO/NSIAD-96-153 Basic Training
B-271797 

period to be completed by fiscal year 1998. DOD’s comments appear in

appendix I.

Scope and

Methodology

During our review of enlisted basic training in the Army, the Navy, the

Marine Corps, and the Air Force, we examined reports on

gender-integrated basic training and discussed progress and problems in

this area with Office of the Secretary of Defense and service officials at the

policy and program levels. In addition, we visited basic training locations

of each of the services. To determine the extent of gender-integrated

training, we examined the type and duration of instruction provided male

and female trainees, performance requirements for trainees, and the

organizational level at which trainees are integrated.

To determine the cost of gender-integrated training, we interviewed

service officials and reviewed service information to determine the

changes made to facilities and staffing as a result of integration and the

costs of those changes.

To determine the relative performance of trainees in integrated and

segregated units, we compared available performance measures provided

by the services for these two groups. This comparison was limited due to

curriculum changes, a limited history of integration, and the limited

number of records documenting trainees’ performance.

To determine how the Army’s current gender-integrated basic training

program compares with its past experience with gender integration, we

requested documentation on current and past programs and their results.

We also contacted officials who were involved with the Army’s earlier

experience with gender integration to obtain any data they might have

kept from that period.

We conducted our review from August 1995 to April 1996 in accordance

with generally accepted government auditing standards.

We are sending copies of this report to other interested congressional

committees and Members of Congress; the Secretaries of Defense, the

Army, the Navy, and the Air Force; and the Commandant of the Marine

Corps. We will also make copies available to other interested parties on

request.

Page 8 GAO/NSIAD-96-153 Basic Training
B-271797 

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

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

appendix II.

Sincerely yours,

Mark E. Gebicke

Director, Military Operations

 and Capabilities Issues

Page 9 GAO/NSIAD-96-153 Basic Training
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

Comments From the

Department of

Defense

12

Appendix II 

Major Contributors to

This Report

13

Tables Table 1: Selected Aspects of the Services’ Basic Training

Programs

3

Table 2: Pass Rates for Men in All-Male and Integrated Army

Training Units 

6

Abbreviations

ARI Army Research Institute

DOD Department of Defense

Page 10 GAO/NSIAD-96-153 Basic Training
Page 11 GAO/NSIAD-96-153 Basic Training
Appendix I 

Comments From the Department of Defense

Page 12 GAO/NSIAD-96-153 Basic Training
Appendix II 

Major Contributors to This Report

National Security and

International Affairs

Division, Washington,

D.C.

Sharon A. Cekala, Associate Director

William E. Beusse, Assistant Director

Norfolk Field Office Janet Keller, Evaluator-in-Charge

Sharon Reid, Evaluator

Jeff McDowell, Evaluator

(703115) Page 13 GAO/NSIAD-96-153 Basic Training
Ordering Information

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

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

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

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

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

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 6015

Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015

or visit:

Room 1100

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

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

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

or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.

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

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

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

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

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

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

info@www.gao.gov

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

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100