```
                                                                 
Military Housing: Opportunity for Reducing Planned Military	 
Construction Costs for Barracks (07-JAN-03, GAO-03-257R).	 
                                                                 
We are reviewing the Department of Defense's (DOD) management of 
its unaccompanied enlisted permanent party housing, commonly	 
referred to as barracks for unmarried servicemembers. We	 
understand that over the next few years the services plan to	 
eliminate barracks with gang latrines and provide private	 
sleeping rooms (meet DOD's 1+1 barracks design standard) for all 
permanent party servicemembers. The Navy has an additional goal  
to provide barracks for sailors who currently live aboard ships  
when in homeport. To implement these goals, the services plan to 
spend about $6 billion over the next 7 years to construct new	 
barracks. In addition to reviewing the services' plans and	 
exploring opportunities for reducing costs, one of our objectives
is to assess the consistency of and the rationale behind the	 
services' barracks occupancy requirements. While we expect to	 
complete our review of DOD's management of military barracks	 
early in 2003, the purpose of this interim report is to bring to 
your attention the widely varying standards among the services	 
regarding who should live in barracks, the effect this can have  
on program costs and quality of life, and the apparently	 
out-of-date policy guidance on this subject. Timely resolution of
these matters could potentially affect future budget decisions.  
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-03-257R					        
    ACCNO:   A05824						        
  TITLE:     Military Housing: Opportunity for Reducing Planned       
Military Construction Costs for Barracks			 
     DATE:   01/07/2003 
  SUBJECT:   Military housing					 
	     Military personnel 				 
	     Military policies					 
	     Housing construction				 
	     Evaluation criteria				 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-03-257R

DRAFT

GAO- 03- 257R Military Housing United States General Accounting Office

Washington, DC 20548

January 7, 2003 The Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld Secretary of Defense

Subject: Military Housing: Opportunity for Reducing Planned Military
Construction Costs for Barracks

Dear Mr. Secretary: We are reviewing the Department of Defense*s (DOD)
management of its unaccompanied enlisted permanent party housing, commonly
referred to as barracks for unmarried servicemembers. We understand that
over the next few years the services plan to eliminate barracks with gang
latrines and provide private sleeping rooms (meet DOD*s 1+ 1 barracks
design standard) 1 for all permanent party servicemembers. The Navy has an
additional goal to provide barracks for sailors who currently live aboard
ships when in homeport. To implement these goals, the services plan to
spend about $6 billion over the next 7 years to construct new barracks. In
addition to reviewing the services* plans and exploring opportunities for
reducing costs, one of our objectives is to assess the consistency of and
the rationale behind the services* barracks occupancy requirements. While
we expect to complete our review of DOD*s management of military barracks
early in 2003, the purpose of this interim report is to bring to your
attention the widely varying standards among the services regarding who
should live in barracks, the effect this can have on program costs and
quality of life, and the apparently out- of- date policy guidance on this
subject. Timely resolution of these matters could potentially affect
future budget decisions.

Results in Brief

The DOD Housing Management manual, 2 which provides policy guidance about
who should live in barracks, appears to be out of date and is under
revision, and the military services have adopted different barracks
occupancy requirements. The

1 In November 1995, DOD adopted a new barracks construction standard,
referred to as the 1+ 1 design standard, for servicemembers permanently
assigned to an installation. The standard, which does not apply to
barracks for members in basic recruit or initial skill training, provides
each junior enlisted member with a private sleeping room and with a
kitchenette and bath shared by one other member. The Marine Corps has a
permanent waiver from the Secretary of the Navy to use a different
barracks design standard* one sleeping room and bath shared by two junior
Marines. 2 U. S. Department of Defense, Office of the Under Secretary of
Defense (Acquisition and Technology),

DOD Housing Management, 4165. 63- M (Washington, D. C.: Sept. 30, 1993).

Page 2 GAO- 03- 257R Military Housing

rationale for the services* requirements, and in particular for the
requirement that more experienced junior servicemembers live in barracks,
appears to be a matter of military judgment and preference with less
emphasis on systematic, objective analyses. The differences among service
requirements have significant implications. Requiring more personnel (more
pay grades) to live in barracks than is justified results in increased
barracks program and construction costs and may be inconsistent with DOD*s
policy to maximize reliance on civilian housing to the extent this policy
is applied to barracks. There are also quality- of- life implications
because most junior servicemembers prefer to live off base.

Accordingly, we are recommending that DOD revise its barracks occupancy
guidance based, at least in part, on the results of objective, systematic
analyses and seek to ensure greater consistency in requirements among the
military services to the extent practical.

Services Use Different Standards to Determine Barracks Requirements

The DOD Housing Management manual requires enlisted servicemembers without
dependents in pay grades E6 and below to live in barracks, but permits the
military services to change this policy and require only members in pay
grades E5 and below to live in barracks. However, significant differences
exist among the services regarding personnel who are required to live in
barracks. More specifically

 the Army requires unaccompanied personnel in pay grades E1 through E6 to
live in barracks;

 the Navy has required unaccompanied personnel in pay grades E1 through
E4 with fewer than 4 years of service to live in barracks;

 the Air Force requires unaccompanied personnel in pay grades E1 through
E4 to live in barracks; and

 the Marine Corps requires unaccompanied personnel in pay grades E1
through E5 to live in barracks.

Policy responsibility for military barracks rests with the Under Secretary
of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, while responsibility
for quality- of- life initiatives rests with the Under Secretary of
Defense for Personnel and Readiness. The two organizations are responsible
for initiatives that eliminate inadequate housing and enhance the quality
of life of military personnel. In discussing the DOD Housing Management
manual, DOD officials stated that this manual, which has not been revised
in more than 9 years, is out of date and under revision. The officials
also stated that each service should make the final decision about who
should live in barracks based on mission requirements. Currently, the
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Military Community and Family Policy of the
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness is
reviewing DOD*s and the services* policies

Page 3 GAO- 03- 257R Military Housing

and practices for assigning junior servicemembers to family housing and
barracks, with a focus on quality- of- life concerns.

Service officials state that unaccompanied junior enlisted servicemembers
should live in barracks to help instill service core values, provide for
team building and mentoring, and meet operational requirements. This
policy appears reasonable for servicemembers who are undergoing basic
recruit and advanced individual training and initial duty at their
permanent assignment locations. However, the extent to which this
requirement should extend to more experienced junior enlisted members is
less clear and appears to be more a matter of military judgment, command
preference, and tradition rather than the result of systematic, objective
analyses. Without a more objective basis for determining who should be
required to live in barracks, the services could err either in allowing
some servicemembers to live off base who may not yet be ready or
unnecessarily hinder the quality of life of more senior members for whom
living off base would not present a problem.

Over the years, the services have periodically changed the requirement and
allowed increasingly larger numbers of unaccompanied members to live off
base in local communities. For example, until 1996 the Air Force required
unaccompanied E5 personnel to live in barracks. Also, in order to more
quickly achieve its barracks improvement goals and reduce planned
construction costs, the Navy recently changed its policy so that, in the
future, barracks will be constructed only for E1 through E3
servicemembers. Further, in all the services, single junior enlisted
servicemembers are required to live in barracks, but married members are
not.

Requirement Differences Have Significant Cost and Quality- of- Life
Implications

The differences among the services in their requirements for unaccompanied
servicemembers to live in barracks have significant cost and quality- of-
life implications. Requiring more personnel (more pay grades) to live in
barracks obviously results in increased barracks requirements. And, with
the services planning extensive barracks improvement programs and with
barracks construction costing as much as $80,000 to $100,000 per sleeping
space, increased requirements translate into higher barracks program
costs.

The current Air Force situation illustrates the point. In June 1998, the
Air Force adopted a barracks assignment policy that called for private
rooms for unaccompanied permanent party personnel. To implement the
policy, the Air Force began assigning only one servicemember to rooms that
had been designed for two. This approach created a significant shortage of
available barracks spaces. To compensate for the shortage until new
barracks could be constructed, the Air Force permitted many servicemembers
normally assigned to barracks to live off base with a housing allowance.
In the United States, as of September 30, 2001, about 13,200 (75 percent)
of the Air Force*s unaccompanied permanent party E4 personnel and 7,600
(27 percent) of its E3 personnel were living off base with a housing
allowance. Although many junior enlisted servicemembers have lived off
base since 1998, we have not identified any systematic Air Force analyses
that would suggest any adverse

Page 4 GAO- 03- 257R Military Housing

effect on the indoctrination or job performance of these servicemembers. 3
Still, because its policy calls for all E1 through E4 servicemembers to
live in barracks, the Air Force plans to spend over $420 million during
the next several years to construct new barracks in order to bring all E1
through E4 members back on base.

Where appropriate, allowing more experienced junior servicemembers to live
off base with a housing allowance could reduce barracks requirements and
future construction, operations, and maintenance costs. Also, relying more
on community housing appears to be consistent with existing DOD family
housing policy that advocates maximum use of civilian housing before
constructing and operating military- owned housing. Further, as
appropriate, a move to civilian housing could also be viewed as an
enhancement to quality of life. As far back as 1992, personnel surveys
have shown that as many as 84 percent of unmarried junior servicemembers
prefer to receive a housing allowance and live off base.

Although reducing requirements for unaccompanied servicemembers to live in
barracks could significantly decrease planned barracks construction costs
over the next several years, this change would result in increased annual
housing allowance costs. Our tentative analyses of five 1+ 1 design
barracks projects in DOD*s military construction budget request for fiscal
year 2003, however, indicate that even over the long term* that is, a
period of 30 years* paying allowances to servicemembers could be slightly
less costly than constructing, operating, and maintaining on- base
barracks, while reducing pressure on scarce military construction funds.

Recommendations for Executive Action

While the department updates its DOD Housing Management manual, we
recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics and the Under Secretary
of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to work together to revise the
department*s guidance regarding permanent party enlisted servicemembers
who are required to live in barracks. In doing so, we recommend that the
rationale behind the department*s barracks policy revision and the
services* barracks occupancy requirements be based, at least in part, on
the results of objective, systematic analyses that consider the
contemporary needs of junior servicemembers, quality- of- life issues, the
services* mission requirements, and other relevant data that would help
provide a basis for the services* barracks occupancy requirements.
Although we recognize that military judgment may play an important role in
setting barracks requirements, we believe that the soundness of those
judgments could be validated and unnecessary requirements mitigated if
those judgments were undergirded by objective qualitative and quantitative
data where available.

Whether a *one size fits all* policy would be practical is not clear at
this point, but greater consistency among the services appears warranted.
Accordingly, we also recommend that the Secretary of Defense seek to
ensure greater consistency among

3 We also have seen no systematic analyses from the other services that
show any adverse impact from unaccompanied enlisted members living off
base with a housing allowance.

Page 5 GAO- 03- 257R Military Housing

the services in implementing this guidance and ensuring that the basis for
significant variances includes consideration of objective data and
analysis.

As you know, 31 U. S. C. 720 requires the head of a federal agency to
submit a written statement of the actions taken on our recommendations to
the Senate Committee on Government Affairs and the House Committee on
Government Reform not later than 60 days after the date of this report. A
written statement must also be sent to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations with the agency*s first request for appropriations made
more than 60 days after the date of this report.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

The Principal Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations
and Environment) provided written comments on a draft of this report,
which are reprinted in enclosure I. In commenting on the draft, DOD agreed
with our recommendation to revise the department*s guidance regarding
permanent party enlisted service members who are required to live in
barracks. DOD indicated that actions were underway to study the
department*s policy for assigning government quarters to single and junior
enlisted service members and to update the department*s barracks and
family housing management guidance.

Additionally, DOD agreed, in principle, to base the department*s barracks
policy revision and the services* barracks occupancy requirements* at
least in part* on the results of systematic analyses, but left unclear the
extent to which it is likely to do so. The department noted that while a
systematic analysis would help support policy development, the relative
importance of the factors used are equally important, and not all factors
can be defined in an objective manner. The department reiterated the
importance of military judgment in such decisions considering the impact
of such factors as training, readiness, and discipline; and it cited the
importance of considering service- unique requirements that could lead to
differences among the services in how they handle this issue. While we
recognize the importance of each of these factors, we continue to believe
that, given the variations noted in our report, the services requirements
determinations should be supported with more objective analyses to the
extent practical.

The department provided additional technical comments which expressed
concern that the presentation of our tentative analysis finding that
paying housing allowances to service members could be slightly less costly
than constructing, operating, and maintaining on- base barracks was
incomplete in its treatment of costs. Specifically, it cited the exclusion
of partial basic housing allowances to barracks residents and the payment
of subsistence allowances, as well as other assumptions made in our
analysis, such as year of occupancy. We will take these comments under
consideration as we continue our analysis of this issue along with the
broader body of work we have underway examining barracks housing issues.
However, it should be noted that our preliminary analysis assumed that
design, construction, and occupancy would occur in the first year of the
projects, based on DOD*s typical lifecycle cost analyses used in the
family housing area. Also, available data indicate that inclusion of
partial housing allowances and differences in subsistence costs provided
to on- base and off- base personnel would not necessarily materially
affect the results

Page 6 GAO- 03- 257R Military Housing

of our analysis. We agree that housing cost issues for single
servicemembers are worthy of additional analyses particularly because the
military services, on their own, are exploring the potential for barracks
privatization.

Scope and Methodology

We performed our work at the Office of the Secretary of Defense and at the
Air Force, Army, Navy, and Marine Corps headquarters offices responsible
for unaccompanied housing and quality- of- life initiatives. At each
location, we interviewed responsible officials and reviewed applicable
policies, procedures, and documents. We also reviewed the services*
barracks improvement plans, goals, and milestones. Further, we visited
three military installations in Virginia* Fort Eustis, Langley Air Force
Base, and the Norfolk Naval Station* to view barracks conditions and
discuss barracks issues. Our review focused on housing for unaccompanied
enlisted servicemembers at their permanent duty locations in the United
States. We did not include recruit, training, or transient barracks in our
review.

To assess the consistency of and the rationale behind the services*
barracks occupancy requirements, we reviewed and compared the services*
barracks policies and interviewed DOD and service officials to discuss the
rationale supporting the policies. We also (1) obtained and analyzed data
to estimate possible barracks construction cost savings if fewer
servicemembers were required to live in barracks, (2) compared the
estimated life- cycle costs of five Army, Air Force, and Navy construction
projects for 1+ 1 design barracks in DOD*s military construction budget
request for fiscal year 2003 with the life- cycle costs of allowing
servicemembers to live off base with a housing allowance, (3) examined the
number of single junior enlisted servicemembers living off base in the Air
Force, and (4) reviewed quality- oflife survey data showing where
unmarried members prefer to live. Our review was conducted from May
through October 2002 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards.

- - - - We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate
congressional committees, and it will be available at no charge on GAO*s
Web site at http:// www. gao. gov. We are continuing with our review of
the management of military barracks and plan to report the results early
in 2003. If you or your staff have any questions on the matters discussed
in this letter, please contact me at (202) 512- 8412, or my Assistant
Director, Mark Little, at (202) 512- 4673. Gary Phillips, Jim Ellis,
Sharon Reid, and R. K. Wild were major contributors to this report.

Sincerely yours, Barry W. Holman, Director Defense Capabilities and
Management

Enclosure I Enclosure I

Page 7 GAO- 03- 257R Military Housing

Comments from the Department of Defense

Enclosure I Enclosure I

Page 8 GAO- 03- 257R Military Housing

Enclosure I Enclosure I

Page 9 GAO- 03- 257R Military Housing

(350294)
*** End of document. ***
```