Page 1 GAO-12-327R Service Academies and Preparatory Schools

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

February 27, 2012

The Honorable Carl Levin

Chairman

The Honorable John McCain

Ranking Member

Committee on Armed Services

United States Senate

The Honorable Howard P. “Buck” McKeon

Chairman

The Honorable Adam Smith

Ranking Member

Committee on Armed Services

House of Representatives

Subject: Military Education: Additional DOD Guidance Is Needed to Enhance Oversight of 

the Service Academies and Their Preparatory Schools

The Departments of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force each have their own service 

academies that produce a portion of the officer corps for the nation’s armed forces. Each 

academy also operates its own preparatory school, which exists to prepare select students 

for admission to the academies. The Department of Defense (DOD) invests a significant 

amount of taxpayer dollars in these institutions. According to the most recently available 

DOD information, the academies and preparatory schools cost more than $1.6 billion to 

operate during fiscal year 2010. To ensure the best value for the taxpayers’ investment in 

the academies and preparatory schools, effective management principles are critical. These 

principles include establishing a complete oversight framework, which includes performance 

goals and quantifiable measures that are linked to clear statements of the organization’s 

mission. 

Over the past two decades, we have issued many products to help inform congressional 

oversight of the academies and preparatory schools in response to congressional inquiries 

regarding these institutions.1 In 2002, the House of Representatives report on defense 

appropriations for fiscal year 20032 directed us to review DOD’s oversight of the academies 

and the preparatory schools, and in September 2003 we issued two reports,3

 

1

See the Related GAO Products section at the end of this report for a list of these products.

containing four 

2

H.R. Rep. No. 107-532, at 14-15 (2002). 3

See GAO, Military Education: DOD Needs to Enhance Performance Goals and Measures to Improve Oversight 

of Military Academies, GAO-03-1000 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 10, 2003), and Military Education: DOD Needs to 

Align Academy Preparatory Schools’ Mission Statements with Overall Guidance and Establish Performance 

Goals, GAO-03-1017 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 10, 2003). The House report also directed GAO to survey 

students and faculty to obtain their perceptions of various aspects of student life at the academies, and in 

September 2003 GAO also reported on the results of its student and faculty surveys. See GAO, Military 

Education: Student and Faculty Perceptions of Student Life at the Military Academies, GAO-03-1001 

(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 12, 2003).
Page 2 GAO-12-327R Service Academies and Preparatory Schools

recommendations. In our report on the academies, we recommended that DOD enhance its 

performance goals and measures to improve oversight of the academies’ operations and 

performance. In our report on the preparatory schools, we recommended that DOD 

(1) clarify the mission statements for the preparatory schools, (2) establish performance 

goals and quantifiable measures for the schools, and (3) use performance goals and 

quantifiable measures to objectively evaluate the performance of the schools. DOD 

concurred with each of the recommendations we made in these two reports. See enclosures 

I and II for the Highlights pages of those reports. In 2011, the Senate Armed Services 

Committee directed us to assess the extent to which DOD has implemented the 

recommendations contained in our September 2003 reports.4

To determine the extent to which DOD has implemented our September 2003 

recommendations, we assessed whether each recommendation was implemented, partially 

implemented, or not implemented. To arrive at these assessments we used the following 

criteria:

• Implemented: All actions necessary to implement the recommendation were completed.

• Partially implemented: Some, but not all, actions necessary to implement the 

recommendation were completed.

• Not implemented: Minimal or no actions necessary to implement the recommendation 

were completed.

To collect information on which we based our assessments, we submitted written questions 

to and received written responses from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Personnel and Readiness (OUSD (P&R)) and the Departments of the Army, the Navy, and 

the Air Force. We also interviewed knowledgeable officials from OUSD (P&R) and from each 

of these services, as well as from DOD’s Office of General Counsel; reviewed DOD’s and 

each of the service’s policies and guidance on the academies and preparatory schools; and 

reviewed various pertinent documents, such as the results of the services’ assessments of 

the academies and preparatory schools for fiscal years 2009 and 2010, the most recent 

available. In addition, we reviewed our previous findings and recommendations. We 

evaluated whether DOD had taken action to establish performance goals and quantifiable 

measures. However, we did not evaluate the quality or appropriateness of any such goals or 

measures. We conducted this performance audit from September 2011 through February 

2012 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those 

standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate 

evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit 

objective. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objective.

Background

The Service Academies and Preparatory Schools

The U.S. Military Academy, U.S. Naval Academy, and U.S. Air Force Academy each 

operate 4-year programs that provide successful candidates with bachelor’s degrees and 

commissions as military officers. In addition to completing their academic courses, the 

officer candidates who attend the academies each year participate in rigorous military 

training activities and mandatory athletic activities. In return for their free education, the 

graduates must serve on active duty for 5 years after graduation. Each academy also 

 

4

Sen. Rep. No. 112-26, at 119 (2011).
Page 3 GAO-12-327R Service Academies and Preparatory Schools

operates its own preparatory school.5 The U.S. Military Academy Preparatory School, U.S. 

Naval Academy Preparatory School, and U.S. Air Force Academy Preparatory School serve 

as an alternative means for entrance into the academies. Academy officials screen all 

applicants and identify those who they believe could succeed at the academies but who 

would benefit from more preparation. The preparatory schools offer a 10-month course of 

instruction that combines academic instruction, physical conditioning, and an orientation to 

military life. Emphasis is placed on giving each candidate as much tutorial assistance as is 

necessary to maximize the individual’s potential for success. The student body at each 

school is organized into a military unit with a student chain of command that is advised by 

commissioned and noncommissioned officers. This structure is intended to provide students 

with exposure to military discipline and order.

A Complete Oversight Framework

Our prior work on the academies and preparatory schools has noted that a complete 

oversight framework includes multiple elements such as performance goals and quantifiable 

measures that are linked to clear statements of the organization’s mission. To carry out 

effective oversight, organizations track achievements; compare those achievements with 

plans, goals, and objectives; and analyze the differences between planned results and 

actual performance. The interrelationship of these elements is essential for accountability 

and proper stewardship of government resources, and for achieving effective and efficient 

program results. Without stated performance goals and quantifiable measures that are 

linked to mission statements, oversight bodies do not have sufficient focus for their activities 

and cannot systematically assess an organization’s strengths and weaknesses or identify 

appropriate remedies to achieve the best value for the investment in the organization. 

Oversight of the Academies and Preparatory Schools

Oversight of the academies is the responsibility of three principal organizations: OUSD 

(P&R), the service headquarters, and the board of visitors of each academy. DOD’s policies 

and guidance for the academies are contained in DOD Directive 1322.22,6 and under DOD’s 

policy, OUSD (P&R) serves as the DOD focal point for matters affecting the academies and 

has responsibility for assessing academy operations and establishing the department’s 

policy and guidance for uniform oversight and management of the academies. Within OUSD 

(P&R), the Accession Policy Directorate performs these oversight responsibilities. Each

service’s headquarters also oversees its respective academy. The superintendents of the 

academies report directly to the uniformed heads of their respective services (the Chiefs of 

Staff for the Army and the Air Force and the Chief of Naval Operations for the Navy), in 

accordance with the chain of command for each service. Each academy also has a board of 

visitors, established by law,7 which consists of congressional members and presidential 

appointees. These boards focus attention and action on a wide range of operational and 

quality of life issues at the academies. The academies perform the primary DOD oversight 

function for their respective preparatory schools.

 

5

The U.S. Military Academy and U.S. Military Academy Preparatory School are co-located at West Point, New 

York. The U.S. Naval Academy is located in Annapolis, Maryland, and the U.S. Naval Academy Preparatory 

School is located in Newport, Rhode Island. The U.S. Air Force Academy and U.S. Air Force Academy 

Preparatory School are co-located in Colorado Springs, Colorado. 6

Department of Defense Directive 1322.22, Service Academies (Aug. 24, 1994). 7

10 U.S.C. §§ 4355, 6968, and 9355.
Page 4 GAO-12-327R Service Academies and Preparatory Schools

DOD Has Partially Implemented Our September 2003 Recommendations regarding 

Oversight of the Service Academies and Their Preparatory Schools

While DOD, collectively, has partially implemented each of our four recommendations 

regarding the service academies and their preparatory schools, the actions taken by the 

services vary significantly. In addition, OUSD (P&R) has not yet updated its guidance for the 

academies and preparatory schools to address our 2003 recommendations. Table 1 

summarizes the four recommendations we made in September 2003 regarding the 

academies and their preparatory schools and the status of DOD’s implementation.

Table 1: GAO’s September 2003 Recommendations, the Status of Implementation, and Actions Taken

Recommendations Status of implementation and actions taken

Recommendation regarding the service academies

Further enhance performance goals and measures whereby 

the information required in annual assessment reports can be 

better evaluated.

Partially implemented: The Air Force and the Navy 

have established performance goals and measures 

for their respective academies, but the Army has 

not.

Recommendations regarding the preparatory schools

Clarify the preparatory schools’ mission statements by aligning 

these statements with the department’s guidance and the 

academies’ expectations.

Partially implemented: The Air Force has clarified 

the mission statement of its preparatory school, but 

the Army and Navy have not.

Establish performance goals and quantifiable measures, linked 

with the schools’ mission statements.

Partially implemented: OUSD (P&R) has not 

established performance goals and quantifiable 

measures across the services; the Air Force, 

however, has taken independent action that is 

consistent with the intent our recommendation. 

Enhance the existing oversight framework by using 

performance goals and quantifiable measures to objectively 

evaluate the performance of the preparatory schools.

Partially implemented: The Air Force is using 

performance goals and quantifiable measures to 

evaluate the performance of its preparatory school, 

but the Army and Navy are not.

Source: GAO analysis.

The Air Force and the Navy Have Established Performance Goals and Measures for Their 

Academies, but the Army Has Not

Performance goals and quantifiable measures are key components of a complete oversight

framework; they allow an agency to track its progress in achieving intended results. 

Assessing performance against stated goals and quantifiable measures can help inform 

management decisions about such issues as the need to redirect resources or shift 

priorities. In our 2003 report on the academies,

8 we noted that although OUSD (P&R) and 

the services used the number and type of commissioned officers as the primary means of 

measuring the military academies’ performance, there were few stated goals against which 

to assess that performance. We noted that OUSD (P&R) required the services to provide it 

with information on current and past performance for academy operations, but we also 

observed that apart from officer accession goals—that is, the number and types of 

commissioned officers—neither OUSD (P&R) nor the services had specific, stated 

performance goals against which to judge the adequacy of the academies’ performance.

Consequently, we recommended that DOD improve its oversight of the operations and 

performance of the academies through the enhancement of performance goals and 

measures.

Since we issued our report in 2003, the Air Force and the Navy have established 

performance goals and measures for their academies, while the Army has not done so. In its 

concurrence with our recommendation in 2003, OUSD (P&R) stated that it would monitor the 

development of improved goals and measures by the academies. In its written response to 

 

8

GAO-03-1000.
Page 5 GAO-12-327R Service Academies and Preparatory Schools

our questions for the present review, OUSD (P&R) stated that following issuance of our 

reports in 2003, it had convened a working group that included representatives from the 

services to begin addressing our recommendations, and that the services had agreed to 

develop ideas to implement our recommendation regarding the academies. In 2005, the Air 

Force issued guidance9 establishing a performance measurement program for the Air Force 

Academy designed to provide insight into the academy’s admissions and general 

governance. As part of its program the Air Force identified numerous performance 

measurement indicators, such as those for attrition and disenrollments, and the Air Force 

has collected, analyzed, and reported data on these performance measures each 

subsequent academic year. In 2007, the Navy established as a goal for midshipmen 

entering the Naval Academy as members of the class of 2013 that a minimum of 65 percent 

of midshipmen choosing a Navy commission would complete a technical degree program—

that is, major in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics—before receiving their 

commission (graduating).10 However, apart from officer accession goals on which we 

reported in 2003, the Army has not established performance goals for the U.S. Military 

Academy that meet the intent of our recommendation. 

In its concurrence with our recommendation in 2003, OUSD (P&R) also stated that it would 

update its policy for the academies as required. DOD’s policies and guidance for the 

academies are contained in DOD Directive 1322.22,11 and it assigns OUSD (P&R) 

responsibility for establishing policy and guidance for the uniform oversight and 

management of the academies. However, OUSD (P&R) has not yet updated this guidance 

to direct the department’s actions with respect to addressing the intent of our 

recommendation. During our review, OUSD (P&R) officials told us they hoped to issue a 

revision to the department’s guidance for the academies in 2012. Further, our review of a 

draft of that guidance found that it does not establish performance goals and measures for 

the academies, nor does it specify how OUSD (P&R) and the services will evaluate the 

academies using such goals and measures. Without such guidance, the services will 

continue to lack clear direction regarding actions that could improve their oversight of the 

academies through the enhancement of performance goals and measures. As we reported 

in 2003, without stated goals and measures, OUSD (P&R) and the services will not be able 

to systematically assess the academies’ strengths and weaknesses or to identify 

appropriate remedies that would facilitate their achieving the best value for the investment in 

these institutions. 

The Air Force Has Clarified the Mission Statement for Its Preparatory School, but the Army 

and Navy Have Not

Mission statements should define an organization’s purpose in language that states desired 

outcomes. In our 2003 report on the preparatory schools,12

 

9

Air Force Instruction 36-3502, Performance Measurement Program for United States Air Force Academy 

we noted that the preparatory 

schools’ mission statements did not clearly articulate the purpose for which the schools were 

being used by the academies. As we observed in that report, the academies expected that 

the preparatory schools would enhance diversity at the academies and that the preparatory 

schools existed to help the academies meet their diversity needs. The preparatory schools’ 

mission statements, however, did not explicitly state this purpose and referred instead to 

preparing “selected personnel who meet special needs,” “selected candidates,” or 

“candidates” for admission to and success at the academies. This omission represents a 

(Mar. 10, 2005).

10Graduates of the U.S. Naval Academy receive a commission in either the U.S. Navy or the U.S. Marine Corps. 11DOD Directive 1322.22 (Aug. 24, 1994). 12GAO-03-1017.
Page 6 GAO-12-327R Service Academies and Preparatory Schools

continuing issue, which we first reported in 1992.13 Without transparency in their mission 

statements, the academies and their respective preparatory schools were unable to 

establish goals that fully reflected the preparatory schools’ intended purpose. Therefore, we 

recommended that OUSD (P&R) clarify the preparatory schools’ mission statements by 

aligning these statements with the department’s guidance and the academies’ expectations. 

DOD concurred with this recommendation in its response to our report.

However, only the Air Force has clarified the mission statement for its preparatory school. In 

2006, the Air Force revised its statement to indicate that one of the school’s missions was to 

enhance diversity at the Air Force Academy. Although both the Army and the Navy revised 

the mission statements for their preparatory schools since our 2003 review, these revisions 

simply capture what students who attend them can expect of the schools. The Army and the 

Navy have not clarified the mission statements of their preparatory schools, as our 

recommendation intended, in a manner that articulates the purpose for which these two 

schools are being used by their respective academies. Table 2 shows a comparison of each 

preparatory school’s mission statement at the time of our 2003 review and that of our 

present review. We have bolded key words and phrases for emphasis.

Table 2: Comparison of 2003 and Current Service Academy Preparatory School Mission Statements

Service academy 

preparatory school

2003 mission statement Current mission statement

Air Force To prepare, motivate, and evaluate for 

admission to and success at the Air Force 

Academy selected personnel who meet 

the special needs of the Air Force.

To motivate, prepare, and evaluate 

selected candidates in an educational, 

military, moral, and physical environment, 

to perform successfully and enhance 

diversity at the U.S. Air Force Academy. 

Army To provide academic, military, and 

physical instruction in a moral-ethical 

military environment to prepare and 

motivate candidates for success at the 

U.S. Military Academy.

To provide focused academic, military, 

and physical instruction in a moral-ethical 

environment to prepare, motivate, and 

inspire candidates for success at the 

U.S. Military Academy.

Navy To prepare selected candidates morally, 

mentally, and physically, with emphasis 

on strengthening the academic foundation 

of individual candidates for officer 

accession through the U.S. Naval, Coast 

Guard, and Merchant Marine

Academies.

To enhance midshipman candidates’

moral, mental, and physical foundations 

to prepare them for success at the U.S. 

Naval Academy.

Sources: GAO and DOD.

Note: Key words and phrases are bolded for emphasis. 

OUSD (P&R) has not updated its guidance clarifying the mission of the preparatory schools. 

DOD Directive 1322.22 states that the mission of the academy preparatory schools is to 

prepare “selected candidates” for admission who are judged to need additional academic 

preparation, so that they will be able to perform successfully as cadets or midshipmen. In 

our review of DOD’s draft guidance, we found that it continues to state that the mission of 

the preparatory schools is to provide enhanced opportunities for “selected candidates” to be 

admitted to the academies. Without guidance that clarifies the mission of the preparatory 

schools, the services will continue to lack clear direction toward facilitating transparency in 

the preparatory schools’ mission statements, and thus will be hampered in establishing 

goals that fully reflect the schools’ intended purpose.

 

13GAO, DOD Service Academies: Academy Preparatory Schools Need a Clearer Mission and Better Oversight, 

GAO/NSIAD-92-57 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 13, 1992).
Page 7 GAO-12-327R Service Academies and Preparatory Schools

OUSD (P&R) Has Not Institutionalized Performance Goals and Quantifiable Measures for 

the Preparatory Schools

A complete oversight framework includes tracking achievements in comparison with plans, 

goals, and objectives and analyzing the differences between planned results and actual 

performance. In our 2003 report on the preparatory schools, we noted that OUSD (P&R) 

and the services received annual reports from the academies on preparatory school 

performance, but that without performance goals and measures, the reports were limited in 

the information they were able to provide OUSD (P&R), the services, or the academies on 

the preparatory schools’ performance. Without specific performance goals, there was no 

objective yardstick against which to gauge preparatory school effectiveness. We 

consequently recommended that DOD establish performance goals and quantifiable 

measures linked with the schools’ mission statements. DOD concurred with this 

recommendation in its response to our report.

However, OUSD (P&R) has not established performance goals and quantifiable measures 

across the services, though we note that the Air Force has taken independent action that is 

consistent with the intent of our recommendation. In 2004, the DOD working group we 

discussed earlier met and developed two performance goals and quantifiable measures for 

the preparatory schools. These measures and goals are as follows: 

• Preparatory school-to-academy entrance ratio: The ratio of the number of preparatory 

school students entering an academy to the number that entered the preparatory school 

for that academy should be greater than 70 percent. 

• Preparatory student versus direct appointee graduation rate: Preparatory school 

students’ academy graduation rate will not lag behind the graduation rate for those 

students who were directly appointed to the academy by more than 5 percent.

The group identified these measures by stating and defining them in e-mail correspondence. 

However, OUSD (P&R) has not issued guidance that would institutionalize the goals and 

measures across the services, such as by providing clear direction regarding the 

performance goals and measures or making documentation other than e-mail 

correspondence about them available to the services. We note that the Air Force did issue 

guidance in 2005 specifying its expectations and requirements for the performance goals 

and measures that DOD’s working group established, but Army and Navy officials told us 

they had not done so. Without institutionalizing the goals and measures and formally 

communicating them to the services, the department cannot provide reasonable assurance 

that each of the services can track or calculate the measures successfully. 

The Air Force Is Using Performance Goals and Quantifiable Measures to Evaluate the 

Performance of Its Preparatory School, but the Army and Navy Are Not

As discussed earlier, performance goals and quantifiable measures constitute key 

components of a complete oversight framework. In our 2003 report on the preparatory 

schools, we noted that the academies exercised direct oversight of their respective 

preparatory schools and monitored the schools’ performance. We also observed, however, 

that it was difficult to evaluate how effective the preparatory schools had been in 

accomplishing their missions because the academies were not using performance goals and 

quantifiable measures to evaluate the performance of the schools. Without using goals that 

were linked to clear mission statements, OUSD (P&R), the service headquarters, and the 

academies did not have an objective basis by which to judge the effectiveness of the 

preparatory schools’ performance. We consequently recommended that OUSD (P&R)

enhance the existing oversight framework by using performance goals and quantifiable 

measures to objectively evaluate the performance of the preparatory schools. DOD 
Page 8 GAO-12-327R Service Academies and Preparatory Schools

concurred with this recommendation in its response to our report and stated that it would 

revise DOD Directive 1322.22. 

However, only the Air Force has used the performance goals and quantifiable measures that 

the DOD working group developed to evaluate the performance of its preparatory school—

the Army and Navy have not. In 2004, DOD’s working group agreed that each of the 

services would evaluate the performance of its respective preparatory school using the two 

performance measures that the group developed. The Air Force has collected, analyzed, 

and reported information on these goals and measures as part of its performance 

measurement program since 2005. The Air Force has also issued semiannual reports to Air 

Force leadership that includes information for these quantified measures, as well as 

evaluations of the performance of its preparatory school against the performance goals. In 

contrast, while the Army and the Navy monitor data for the quantifiable measures—for 

example, the Army and the Navy have provided information regarding these measures in 

their reports to OUSD (P&R)—neither evaluates the performance of its preparatory school 

against the performance goals that the working group established. OUSD (P&R) stated in its 

response to our 2003 report that it would revise DOD guidance to address this 

recommendation. However, OUSD (P&R)’s current draft guidance does not require the 

services to use performance goals and quantifiable measures to objectively evaluate the 

performance of the preparatory schools. Without specifying its expectations and 

requirements for using performance goals and quantifiable measures to assess the 

performance of the preparatory schools, the department will continue to lack an objective 

basis with which to judge the effectiveness of the preparatory schools in accomplishing their 

mission. 

Conclusions 

After we issued our 2003 reports, OUSD (P&R) and the services took steps to address our 

recommendations and, by mid-2004, had made some progress in implementing them. 

However, more than 7 years later, DOD has not fully implemented any of the 

recommendations. We maintain, as we noted in 2003, that clear mission statements, along 

with performance goals and quantifiable measures, are critical to providing the department 

with an objective yardstick against which to assess the performance of the academies and 

preparatory schools. In the current environment of increasing budgetary pressures, where 

programs and initiatives must compete for resources, it is critical that the department take 

steps to ensure that it is achieving the best value for the nation’s investment in the 

academies and preparatory schools. However, excepting the actions taken by the Air Force, 

the department has not demonstrated a sustained commitment to establishing goals and 

measuring performance against them. Until OUSD (P&R) issues updated guidance that 

provides the services with clear direction regarding the actions they should take to address 

the intent of our prior recommendations, DOD will continue to lack the tools necessary to 

determine the effectiveness of these institutions. 

Recommendations for Executive Action

Because DOD has not fully implemented the recommendations contained in our 2003 

reports, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Under Secretary of Defense 

for Personnel and Readiness to issue updated guidance to take the following four actions: 

• establish performance goals and quantifiable measures for the service academies, and 

specify the department’s expectations and requirements regarding how OUSD (P&R) 

and the services will use the performance goals and quantifiable measures to evaluate 

the performance of the academies; 
Page 9 GAO-12-327R Service Academies and Preparatory Schools

• clarify the preparatory schools’ mission and direct the service academies to align their 

expectations of and mission statements for their preparatory schools with that mission;

• institutionalize performance goals and quantifiable measures that are linked with the 

preparatory school’s mission, to include making documentation about them available to 

the services; and

• specify the department’s expectations and requirements regarding how OUSD (P&R) 

and the services will use the performance goals and quantifiable measures to evaluate 

the performance of the preparatory schools.

Agency Comments

In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD concurred with our conclusion and with 

each of our four recommendations. In its comments, DOD stated that it intended to address 

our recommendations in an update to DOD Directive 1322.22 and estimated that it would 

complete this update by December 2012. DOD’s comments are reprinted in enclosure III.

- - - - - 

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees; the 

Secretaries of Defense, the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force; and the (Acting) Under 

Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness. In addition, the report is available at no 

charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any questions on this report, please contact me at (202) 512-3604 

or farrellb@gao.gov. Key contributors to this report are listed in enclosure IV. Contact points 

for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

of this report.

Brenda S. Farrell

Director, Defense Capabilities and Management

Enclosures - 4
Page 10 GAO-12-327R Service Academies and Preparatory Schools

Enclosure I: Highlights of GAO-03-1000
Page 11 GAO-12-327R Service Academies and Preparatory Schools

Enclosure II: Highlights of GAO-03-1017
Page 12 GAO-12-327R Service Academies and Preparatory Schools

Enclosure III: Comments from the Department of Defense
Page 13 GAO-12-327R Service Academies and Preparatory Schools
Page 14 GAO-12-327R Service Academies and Preparatory Schools
Page 15 GAO-12-327R Service Academies and Preparatory Schools

Enclosure IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Brenda S. Farrell, at (202) 512-3604 or farrellb@gao.gov

Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, key contributors to this report include David E. 

Moser, Assistant Director; Wesley A. Johnson; James P. Klein; Michael Silver; Cheryl A. 

Weissman; and K. Nicole Willems.
Page 16 GAO-12-327R Service Academies and Preparatory Schools

Related GAO Products

Military Personnel: The DOD and Coast Guard Academies Have Taken Steps to Address 

Incidents of Sexual Harassment and Assault, but Greater Federal Oversight Is Needed. 

GAO-08-296. Washington, D.C.: January 17, 2008. 

Military Personnel: Strategic Plan Needed to Address Army’s Emerging Officer Accession 

and Retention Challenges. GAO-07-224. Washington, D.C.: January 19, 2007.

Military Education: Student and Faculty Perceptions of Student Life at the Military 

Academies. GAO-03-1001. Washington, D.C.: September 12, 2003.

Military Education: DOD Needs to Align Academy Preparatory Schools’ Mission Statements 

with Overall Guidance and Establish Performance Goals. GAO-03-1017. Washington, D.C.: 

September 10, 2003.

Military Education: DOD Needs to Enhance Performance Goals and Measures to Improve 

Oversight of Military Academies. GAO-03-1000. Washington, D.C.: September 10, 2003.

DOD Service Academies: Problems Limit Feasibility of Graduates Directly Entering the 

Reserves. GAO/NSIAD-97-89. Washington, D.C.: March 24, 1997.

DOD Service Academies: Comparison of Honor and Conduct Adjudicatory Processes. 

GAO/NSIAD-95-49. Washington, D.C.: April 25, 1995.

DOD Service Academies: Academic Review Processes. GAO/NSIAD-95-57. Washington, 

D.C.: April 5, 1995.

DOD Service Academies: Update on Extent of Sexual Harassment. GAO/NSIAD-95-58. 

Washington, D.C.: March 31, 1995.

Coast Guard: Cost for the Naval Academy Preparatory School and Profile of Minority 

Enrollment. GAO/RCED-94-131. Washington, D.C.: April 12, 1994.

Military Academy: Gender and Racial Disparities. GAO/NSIAD-94-95. Washington, D.C.: 

March 17, 1994.

DOD Service Academies: Further Efforts Needed to Eradicate Sexual Harassment. 

GAO/T-NSIAD-94-111. Washington, D.C.: February 3, 1994.

DOD Service Academies: More Actions Needed to Eliminate Sexual Harassment. 

GAO/NSIAD-94-6. Washington, D.C.: January 31, 1994.

Academy Preparatory Schools. GAO/NSIAD-94-56R. Washington, D.C.: October 5, 1993.

Air Force Academy: Gender and Racial Disparities. GAO/NSIAD-93-244. Washington, D.C.: 

September 24, 1993.

Military Education: Information on Service Academies and Schools. GAO/NSIAD-93-264BR. 

Washington, D.C.: September 22, 1993.
Page 17 GAO-12-327R Service Academies and Preparatory Schools

Naval Academy: Gender and Racial Disparities. GAO/NSIAD-93-54. Washington, D.C.: 

April 30, 1993.

DOD Service Academies: More Changes Needed to Eliminate Hazing. GAO/NSIAD-93-36. 

Washington, D.C.: November 16, 1992.

DOD Service Academies: Status Report on Reviews of Student Treatment. GAO/T-NSIAD92-41. Washington, D.C.: June 2, 1992.

Service Academies: Historical Proportion of New Officers During Benchmark Periods. 

GAO/NSIAD-92-90. Washington, D.C.: March 19, 1992.

DOD Service Academies: Academy Preparatory Schools Need a Clearer Mission and Better 

Oversight. GAO/NSIAD-92-57. Washington, D.C.: March 13, 1992.

Naval Academy: Low Grades in Electrical Engineering Courses Surface Broader Issues. 

GAO/NSIAD-91-187. Washington, D.C.: July 22, 1991.

DOD Service Academies: Improved Cost and Performance Monitoring Needed. 

GAO/NSIAD-91-79. Washington, D.C.: July 16, 1991.

Review of the Cost and Operations of DOD’s Service Academies. GAO/T-NSIAD-90-28. 

Washington, D.C.: April 4, 1990.

(351663)
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product 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.
The Government Accountability 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 GAO’s website (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, 

GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.