Military Training: Actions Needed to Assess Workforce Requirements and Appropriate Mix of Army Training Personnel
Published: 2011-09-20T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: To support ongoing operations, the Army gives priority to providing personnel to its operating forces over its support organizations, including Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC).TRADOC performs various functions, such as developing warfighting doctrine and providing training. To help manage its workforce, TRADOC has taken certain actions, such as relying more on contractors and reassigning other staff to be instructors. In a February 2010 memorandum, the TRADOC Commander stated that because of various factors TRADOC's ability to successfully perform its core competencies and functions was increasingly at risk. House Armed Services Committee report 111-491 directed GAO to evaluate the availability of Army trainers. GAO assessed the extent to which TRADOC has (1) identified the number and type of personnel needed to carry out its training mission and (2) evaluated the impact of its workforce management actions on the quality of training. GAO interviewed key Army and TRADOC officials and reviewed relevant doctrine, guidance, curricula, personnel requirements data, and training survey results.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: TRADOC annually determines its requirements for key training positions, but limitations exist in its underlying approach, such as the use of outdated personnel requirements models. From fiscal years 2005 through 2011, TRADOC's requirements for instructors, training developers, and training support personnel have remained relatively steady while the student workload has increased by about a third. To determine personnel requirements, TRADOC uses various models involving formulas that rely on a range of assumptions and inputs. Army guidance requires Army commands to update models at least every 3 years, but TRADOC has not updated its model for determining the number of instructors it needs since 1998. As a result, assumptions and inputs used in the model may not reflect changes in how training is currently provided, such as the greater use of self-paced computerized learning in place of classroom instruction. Such changes could affect the number of instructors required to teach a course. In addition, TRADOC has used the same number, with minor modifications, for training developer requirements for the last 3 fiscal years. TRADOC officials recognize that using the same number for training developer requirements is not a valid approach and that an updated model is needed; however, they are unsure when they will be able to update the model. Lastly, TRADOC has not conducted an assessment to determine the optimum mix of military, Army civilian, and contractor personnel to use to execute its training mission. Without the benefit of models that are updated to more closely reflect current training conditions and without conducting a mix analysis, TRADOC does not have a sound basis for accurately identifying the number and types of personnel needed for key training personnel and making the most cost-effective use of training resources. TRADOC has taken various workforce management actions in order to execute its training mission, but its quality assurance program does not collect certain information needed to evaluate the impact of these actions on the quality of training. Among other things, TRADOC has increased the number of students that an instructor teaches, relied on more contractors as instructors, and reassigned doctrine and training developers to serve as instructors. Through surveys and other tools, TRADOC evaluates factors such as students' knowledge of course materials and whether an instructor is teaching from the curriculum, but it does not systematically collect the data needed to evaluate the impact of changing the student to instructor ratio or the type of instructor on the quality of training. TRADOC officials expressed mixed views about the impact of using contractors on the quality of training. Some believed that more military trainers are needed because these personnel have the knowledge and credibility gained from combat experience to teach soldiers. While others stated that contractors provide the same quality of training as military personnel. GAO noted that TRADOC's use of doctrine and training developers to serve as instructors is among the factors that have led to a backlog in updating doctrine and curricula, which could affect the quality of training.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that TRADOC establish a plan to (1) update its personnel requirements models, doctrine, and curricula; (2) complete a personnel mix assessment; and (3) establish metrics to evaluate its workforce management actions. DOD concurred with the recommendations.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) develops the  Army’s soldiers and civilian leaders to ensure that the Army remains a  modern and capable fighting force by performing various functions,  including developing warfighting doctrine and providing training to  soldiers. It provides training at various locations, using a mix of military  personnel, Army civilians, and contractors. Since 2001, the Army has  faced significant demands to provide military personnel to support  ongoing contingency operations and other missions. Each year, Army  leadership allocates military personnel among the Army’s warfighting or  “operating” forces and supporting or “generating” forces, the largest  component of which is TRADOC. To meet operational demands, the  Army has been giving higher priority to staffing its operating forces than  its generating forces. Therefore, to help manage its workforce, TRADOC  has taken various actions, including using contractors as instructors,  increasing the number of students that an instructor teaches, and  reassigning personnel who develop doctrine and training curricula to  serve as instructors. In a February 2010 memorandum, the Commander  of TRADOC stated that TRADOC’s ability to successfully perform its core  competencies and functions was increasingly at risk because of manning  issues. In particular, the memorandum noted that TRADOC had  increased its reliance on contractor personnel in lieu of military trainers  who can offer knowledge and credibility gained from combat experience  when they teach, coach, and mentor soldiers attending TRADOC  schools. The memorandum also noted that shortfalls in the number of  training developers, who are responsible for developing curricula for  TRADOC courses, has led to a substantial backlog with regard to  developing these curricula.
The House Armed Services Committee report accompanying a proposed  bill for the fiscal year 2011 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R.  5136) directed GAO to evaluate the availability of Army trainers.  Specifically, we determined the extent to which TRADOC has   (1) identified the number and type of personnel it needs to carry out its  training mission and (2) evaluated the impact of its workforce  management actions on the quality of training.
To determine the extent to which TRADOC has identified the number and  type of personnel it needs to carry out its training mission, we focused our  review on instructor, training developer, and training support personnel— personnel types that TRADOC officials identified as having key roles in  executing the training mission. We reviewed Army and TRADOC  guidance and analyzed personnel requirements. Additionally, we  interviewed key officials from the Department of the Army Headquarters,  TRADOC, and several TRADOC schools. Specifically, we selected seven  schools to visit that were identified by TRADOC headquarter officials and  in the TRADOC Commander’s 2010 memorandum as being  representative of TRADOC’s challenges in providing training, such as  having high student workload or using a large number of contractors. To  determine the extent to which TRADOC has evaluated the impact of the  workforce management actions it has taken to execute its training mission  on the quality of training provided, we evaluated the results of quality  assurance instruments, including surveys conducted at TRADOC  schools, and training and doctrine development workload data. We also  interviewed key Department of the Army Headquarters, TRADOC, and  TRADOC school officials.
We conducted this performance audit from August 2010 to September  2011 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 objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We discuss our scope  and methodology in more detail in appendix I.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The Army is made up of both operating and generating forces. Operating  forces consist of combat units, including divisions, brigades, and  battalions that conduct operations around the world, including  contingency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as humanitarian  assistance and civil support missions. The Army’s generating force  consists of organizations that provide a broad range of support for the  operating forces, such as training, supply, and maintenance. TRADOC is  the largest part of the generating force and develops the Army’s soldiers  and civilian leaders to ensure that the Army remains a modern and  capable fighting force by developing warfighting concepts and doctrine  and by providing recruiting, training, and associated support for military  personnel. TRADOC’s core functions include, among other things,  providing initial military training, leadership courses, and continued  professional education courses to soldiers at all levels.
TRADOC carries out its mission at 32 schools located on 15 different  installations throughout the continental United States. The schools  specialize in such training as infantry, intelligence, and aviation (see fig. 1).
TRADOC uses a mix of three types of personnel—military, Department of  the Army civilian, and contractor—to train soldiers. These personnel  serve in various key roles, such as  instructors who teach the classes;    doctrine developers who develop, review, and update the doctrine,  including field manuals and training circulars;  training developers whose function is to analyze, design, develop, and  evaluate training and training products; and  training support personnel who perform functions necessary to  conduct field training exercises.
To determine its requirements for the aforementioned and other  personnel, TRADOC uses a variety of methods, including modeling and  manpower studies. For example, to determine personnel requirements for  instructors, TRADOC uses a model that takes the projected student  workload and determines the number of instructors needed to meet that  workload. The model also relies on other inputs and assumptions, such  as optimal class size. TRADOC has developed similar models to  determine personnel requirements for training developers and training  support personnel. Once TRADOC has determined its requirements  based on model outputs and other variables, the Army determines  authorized personnel levels—the maximum number of military and civilian  personnel TRADOC can assign in order to execute its mission.  Authorized personnel levels are typically less than requirements because  of budget constraints. Once the Army has determined authorized  personnel levels, TRADOC positions can then be assigned to military  personnel or filled by Department of the Army civilians or contractors.
During fiscal year 2010, TRADOC was authorized about 41,000 positions.  TRADOC received about $4.1 billion of the Army’s appropriation, of which  62 percent or approximately $2.5 billion was dedicated to training and  training development. TRADOC leadership decided how those  appropriated funds were to be allocated to each of its schools.
section_title: Limitations Exist in TRADOC’s Approach to Determining Personnel Requirements and No Personnel Mix Assessment Has Been Completed
paragraphs: TRADOC officials expressed concerns about shortfalls in key personnel.  However, limitations exist in their approach to determine personnel  requirements. In addition, TRADOC has not conducted a personnel mix  assessment to determine the optimum mix of military, Army civilian, and  contractor personnel.
subsections: section_title: TRADOC Personnel Requirements Remain Relatively Steady and Student Workload Is Increasing
paragraphs: TRADOC’s stated personnel requirements for instructors, training  developers, and training support personnel have remained relatively  steady from fiscal years 2005 through 2011, as shown in figure 2. The  figure also shows that over the same time period, TRADOC’s student  workload has increased by about 185,000, or about one-third (399,371 to  584,299), as a result of factors such as increases in the Army’s end  strength to support ongoing operations, which have led to a larger  number of soldiers who need TRADOC training.
In his 2010 memorandum, the TRADOC Commander raised concerns  that manning shortfalls were putting TRADOC’s ability to successfully  perform its core competencies and functions at risk. Similarly, at the time  of our review, TRADOC headquarters and school officials stated that  considering increases in student workload, TRADOC continued to face  shortages in instructors, training developers, and training support  personnel. However, we found limitations in the models that TRADOC  uses for identifying personnel requirements for these key personnel.
In determining instructor personnel requirements, TRADOC uses an  instructor model based on a formula that relies on assumptions and  inputs. According to the Army’s regulation on manpower management,  Army commands are required to review the models they use to determine  manpower requirements at least every 3 years, or more often as needed.  Further, the regulation requires the U.S. Army Manpower Analysis  Agency to review and recommend approval of these models to the  Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs, who  is responsible for approving the models. However, we found that the  instructor personnel requirements model has not been updated since  1998, and the assumptions and inputs used in the model may not reflect  changes in how training is currently provided. For example:    The model assumes that a course can and will be conducted in the  same way every time it is taught. However, we found that the way in  which TRADOC delivers a course can vary. For example, instead of  students traveling to attend training in the classroom, schools may  use distance learning, which allows soldiers to complete computer- based training courses or selected modules of a course at their  permanent duty locations. Some of these courses are self-paced and  not instructor led; other courses are instructor led and utilize  technology to reach more students. Because the model assumes that  all courses are taught the same way, it does not take into  consideration that in some cases, using distance learning may reduce  the need for instructors while in other cases additional instructors may  be needed to lead distance learning courses.    The model also assumes that TRADOC schools can use the same  instructor to teach different courses. Specifically, there is an  assumption that once an individual is certified as an instructor, that  individual can teach any course by following the contents in the  course curriculum. While this may be true for some general courses,  more specialized courses require a background or familiarity with the  subject matter in order to teach it. Because the model assumes that  any instructor can teach any course, it may not accurately reflect the  total number of instructors needed to teach all courses.    The model uses inputs that include a number of variables, such as  workload requirements and data from course curricula. For example,  the model uses indirect contact hours—the time allotted for instructor  duties not related to formal class time, such as reviewing lesson plans  and providing private counseling to students. However, according to a  TRADOC official, using indirect contact hours in the model could  cause inefficiencies in determining personnel requirements because  the indirect contact hours have not been reviewed and updated in 10  years. Another input that goes into the model is the manpower  availability factor—the amount of time personnel is available to  perform their primary duties. According to Army Regulation 570-4 for  manpower management, during normal operations in the United  States, military and civilian personnel should generally be available to  perform their assigned tasks for 145 hours per month, or  approximately 18 days. However, according to some TRADOC school  officials, expecting these personnel to actually be available for that  many hours may be unrealistic. Specifically, they stated that  instructors were not available for the mandated amount of time  because they had to perform other activities, such as attending  training or taking sick and annual leave. Since the model does not  fully account for these activities, it may not accurately identify the total  number of instructors needed to execute the training mission.
In determining training developer personnel requirements, TRADOC had  used a model but discontinued its use. The training developer model had  not been updated since 1996, and TRADOC stopped using it in 2006  because the requirements it calculated were higher than those needed to  complete the workload. Instead, in an effort to better align its  requirements to its workload, TRADOC decided to use estimates of the  time required to develop training products as the basis to determine the  needed numbers of training developers. However, in 2009, the Army  Manpower and Force Analysis Directorate stated that using this  methodology was not a valid means of determining personnel  requirements and TRADOC stopped using it. As a result, since 2009,  TRADOC has used the same estimated number, with minor  modifications, for training developer requirements from one fiscal year to  the next. TRADOC officials recognize that this is not a valid approach and  that they need to use an updated model to determine training developer  requirements. According to a TRADOC official, TRADOC tentatively plans  to begin a review to develop a new model in the second half of fiscal year  2012. The official did not believe TRADOC would be able to meet this  deadline, however, because of competing priorities to develop other  models.
In determining the number of training support personnel requirements,  TRADOC uses a model that was updated and approved in 2010. The  model originally defined training support personnel as individuals who  performed classroom and field training activities. As part of the update,  training support personnel were redefined to include only individuals who  conducted some field training activities. As a result, requirements related  to some activities covered under the original definition are not identified  under the current process. For instance, prior to the update, the training  support personnel model included requirements for individuals  responsible for activities such as resetting computers in the classrooms or  delivering ammunition to shooting ranges. These activities are no longer  conducted by individuals who are considered training support personnel  but are still needed to conduct the training mission. TRADOC has not  developed personnel requirements models for these activities or factored  in how these activities may be integrated into existing personnel  requirements models. For example, TRADOC officials stated that they  intend to develop a personnel requirements model for ammunition  delivery, but as of July 2011, the model had not been developed.  Similarly, tasks such as setting up computers may be assigned to  instructors, but the instructor model has not been updated to reflect these  workload requirements.
Several of these limitations were also identified in an August 2010 Army  Audit Agency review of TRADOC’s personnel requirements determination  process for institutional training. While TRADOC acknowledged these  limitations and stated that it would work to address them, we found that  as of July 2011, these limitations remained. According to TRADOC  officials, these models have not been developed or updated because of a  lack of manpower and competing demands on personnel time. Currently,  the office responsible for developing personnel requirements models  stated that priority has been placed on developing models that do not  currently exist rather than updating existing models. TRADOC is in the  process of revising its overall approach to training, moving from traditional  classroom training to a more technology-driven approach intended to  enable soldiers to learn using a variety of techniques, including  simulations, gaming technology, or other technology-delivered  instruction. Officials stated that the impact on personnel requirements  from this new approach to learning is unknown, but believe that it may  reduce personnel requirements, particularly for instructors, because of an  increased reliance on technology rather than classroom instruction.  Officials acknowledge that these changes will need to be incorporated  into personnel requirements models. However, we found that as of July  2011, TRADOC had not established a timeline for updating these models.  Without updated models, TRADOC cannot ensure that it is accurately  identifying the numbers of instructors, training developers, and training  support personnel needed to carry out its training mission.
section_title: TRADOC Has Not Conducted a Personnel Mix Assessment
paragraphs: According to Army Regulation 570-4, determining manpower  requirements includes a determination of optimum manpower mix. This  step is typically completed after requirements and authorized personnel  levels have been determined. TRADOC relies on a mix of military  personnel, Army civilians, and contractors to accomplish its training  mission. School officials we interviewed stated that their preference would  be to solely use military personnel to provide training because military  personnel have the knowledge and credibility gained from combat  experience to teach and mentor soldiers; however, they recognize that  this is impossible because of constraints on the availability of military  personnel. Given those constraints, these officials agree that it is  important to use an appropriate mix of personnel in order to maximize the  benefit that each type of personnel adds to training. For example, officials  say that civilians bring continuity to in-house training since they do not  deploy and contractor personnel bring flexibility that allows TRADOC  officials to adjust personnel to meet fluctuations in student workload.
According to TRADOC leadership, TRADOC schools rely heavily on  contractors to execute training. TRADOC officials estimated that some  courses are taught by an instructor mix that is 30 percent military and 70  percent civilians, including contractors. In addition, officials at several  schools noted that without contractors they would not be able to meet the  student workload. While several officials stated that the mix of personnel  they are currently using is inappropriate, most places we visited— including TRADOC headquarters—could not provide us with data about  the number of contractors they were using to accomplish TRADOC’s  training mission. As a result, they were unable to identify what their true  reliance on contractors is or whether the number of contractors being  used is too high. We found that officials at only one school that we visited  had documented the number of contractor personnel. In fiscal year 2010,  using TRADOC data, we determined that contractors made up 46 percent  of instructor personnel and 64 percent of training developer personnel at  that school.
In March 2010, the Department of the Army issued a memorandum  directing generating force commands, including TRADOC, to develop a  Generating Force Manpower Mix Assessment no later than June 1,  2010. According to the memorandum, the results of the manpower mix  assessment are key to shaping strategic force structure decisions and  should enable commands, including TRADOC, to do the right things in  the most efficient manner to support Army requirements and standards.  The memorandum identified several factors that should be considered in  conducting the assessment, including reviewing tasks that are no longer  necessary or are not being performed because of current manpower mix  or levels. Further, the memorandum requires commands to project the  mix of military, civilian, and contractor personnel in the most effective and  cost efficient means as part of the assessment. According to TRADOC  headquarters officials, each school should do its own mix assessment.  However, TRADOC school officials stated that the schools have not done  such assessments because of constant changes in funding, student  workload, and availability of military personnel. TRADOC leadership  recognizes that a personnel mix assessment is important and should be  completed to ensure that the right mix of military, civilian, and contractor  personnel are used as instructors in TRADOC courses. However, as of  July 2011, TRADOC had no specific plan with milestones for its schools  to conduct these personnel mix assessments.
section_title: Quality Assurance Program Does Not Enable TRADOC to Evaluate the Impact of Workforce Management Actions on the Quality of Training
paragraphs: TRADOC has taken various workforce management actions in order to  execute its training mission, but its quality assurance program does not  capture the level of detail needed to evaluate the impact of these steps on  the quality of training provided to soldiers. Workforce management  actions include increasing student to instructor ratios, using contractors to  augment military and Army civilian instructors, and reassigning doctrine  and training developers to serve as instructors.
subsections: section_title: TRADOC Has Developed a Quality Assurance Program to Evaluate Training
paragraphs: TRADOC has established a quality assurance program to collect  information that it uses to measure the effectiveness and quality of its  training. TRADOC’s regulation setting out the description and  requirements for the evaluation and quality assurance program assigns  responsibilities to TRADOC regarding evaluations of its own courses and  training materials. In addition, the TRADOC pamphlet that provides  implementing guidance, formats, and techniques for TRADOC’s  evaluation and quality assurance programs details different types of  information that should be considered as part of the evaluation, such as  whether training objectives are met (e.g., whether students are able to  perform core tasks) and whether instructors perform to standards. The  Command’s quality assurance program consists of the following types of  evaluations:    Accreditation. Accreditation is the formal recognition the TRADOC  Commander gives to TRADOC schools, granting them authority to  conduct or continue to conduct training. It certifies that a school’s  training program, processes, personnel, administration, operations,  and infrastructure are adequate to support training to course  standards and that the school is adhering to TRADOC training  guidance and directives. TRADOC guidance calls for schools to be  evaluated by TRADOC every 3 years, using the Army Enterprise  Accreditation Standards. Quality assurance officials at the schools  conduct self-assessments to prepare for the accreditation process  conducted by headquarters officials, and they also conduct  accreditations of their own educational programs.
Internal evaluation. This evaluation process includes classroom  observations and internal surveys. During classroom observations,  evaluators observe classes to ensure that training is being delivered  in the right sequence, among other things. Evaluators use instructor  performance checklists to capture information, such as how well the  instructor introduces the course and presents course materials. An  internal survey is conducted at the beginning of each course to  determine the students’ knowledge of course content prior to starting  the course and again at the end of the course to determine if the  objectives of the course have been met. Questions on this survey  focus on critical tasks for the job specialty that the course covers.  Students also have an opportunity to write in comments on the  survey.    External evaluation. This process uses an external survey to  determine if soldiers who attended a course can meet job  performance requirements as a result of the training they received or  if additional training is needed. The survey is sent to the soldier or the  soldier’s supervisor, usually no sooner than 6 months after the soldier  completes the training course. External evaluations determine if the  training the soldiers receive prepares them to meet the needs of the  operational Army.
section_title: TRADOC Has Taken Various Workforce Management Actions That Could Affect the Quality of Training
paragraphs: TRADOC has taken a number of workforce management actions in order  to execute its training mission. As discussed below, these actions include  increasing student to instructor ratios, using contractors to augment  military and Army civilian instructors, and using doctrine and training  developers as instructors. We found that there were mixed views about  the impact of these actions on the quality of training from students and  TRADOC officials at various levels. On the one hand, in a 2010  memorandum, TRADOC leadership raised concerns that the steps it had  taken may be affecting TRADOC’s ability to carry out its core  competencies, which include providing quality training. On the other hand,  survey results from students indicated that they believed they received  quality training. Further, officials at TRADOC headquarters and schools,  including quality assurance personnel, as well as some students stated  that they believe that quality training is typically being provided. TRADOC  has not established any metrics to measure the impact of its workforce  management actions on training quality and without such metrics is  unable to definitively determine what impact, if any, has occurred.
At times, TRADOC has accommodated increases in student workload by  changing the student to instructor ratio for certain courses, increasing the  number of students in the classroom without adding instructors. Officials  throughout TRADOC expressed concerns that increasing student to  instructor ratios from what is prescribed in course curricula would affect  the quality of training because larger class sizes reduce the amount of  one-on-one time that instructors can spend with students. For example, at  the infantry school at Fort Benning, school officials stated that one of the  mortar courses was designed to be taught with a student to instructor  ratio of 8:1 but instead was taught with a ratio of 23:1 in order to meet the  student workload. According to officials at the school, instructors had less  time to spend with students, and therefore students were only able to  become familiar with mortars but not get fully trained on them. Similarly,  officials at the aviation school at Fort Rucker stated that their student to  instructor ratio for one class sometimes has to be increased from 2:1 to  3:1. According to officials, the safety risk for this class was increased and  the quality of the training was affected because the instructor’s attention  had to be divided among three students rather than two. The Army Audit  Agency in its 2010 study identified these issues and others associated  with the student to instructor ratios. For example, the study found that  when student to instructor ratios increased, officer instruction became  more task-centric, with less emphasis on leadership training. Quality  assurance personnel evaluate compliance with student to instructor ratios  by comparing the ratio used in the training environment to that outlined in  the curricula. However, the quality assurance program captures only  whether instructors are teaching the course with the student to instructor  ratios identified in the curriculum; it does not further investigate the impact  on training quality of the increased ratio. As a result, no data are captured  that can be used to evaluate the impact of having more students assigned  to one instructor. In its report, the Army Audit Agency recommended that  TRADOC identify metrics that could capture data on the effects of not  complying with recommended student to instructor ratios. TRADOC  responded that it would require quality assurance personnel at the  schools to report any quality of training issues they found when evaluating  their courses—including data on student to instructor ratios—beginning in  the first quarter of fiscal year 2011. However, we found that as of July  2011, TRADOC schools had not yet been required to report this  information. As a result, leadership lacks pertinent information that could  help them assess the impact of increasing student to instructor ratios.
As discussed earlier, TRADOC uses contractors to augment military and  Army civilian training personnel. A mix of views has been expressed  regarding the quality of training provided by contractor personnel. For  example, in 2010, the Commanding General of TRADOC issued a  memorandum stating that using contractors has led to a “degreening” of  the force, meaning that not enough military personnel are involved in  training soldiers. TRADOC officials believe that having military personnel  in the classroom is extremely important because military personnel have  the knowledge and credibility gained from combat experience to teach,  coach, and mentor the soldiers they train. Alternatively, other TRADOC  officials have noted the value that contractors bring by providing schools  the flexibility to augment the number of instructors they have available in  order to accommodate surges in student workload and fluctuations in the  number of classes offered. Still other officials believe there is no  significant difference in the quality of training provided by military, civilian,  and contractor personnel. They noted that some of the contractor  personnel used to provide training have prior military experience. For  example, at Fort Huachuca, quality assurance officials stated that most of  the contractor personnel used are former military personnel who had  deployed at least one time.
TRADOC’s quality assurance program does not systematically collect the  data needed to evaluate the impact of the type of instructor on the quality  of training. While TRADOC’s quality assurance program captures  information such as how well the instructor follows lesson plans,  demonstrates techniques, and responds to students’ needs, it does not  systematically identify whether the instructor was military, civilian, or  contractor. Further, internal surveys used to gather student feedback on  courses do not include any specific questions requiring students to  identify the type of instructor for the class. Students are able to provide  their comments in the survey, which may include a discussion of the  instructor, but there is no requirement for them to do so. As a result,  TRADOC has no systematic method of compiling this data to determine  the impact of instructor type on the quality of instruction.
Another workforce management action TRADOC has taken is to use  doctrine and training developers to serve as instructors. TRADOC’s  quality assurance program evaluates whether instructors are teaching in  accordance with what is in the curricula. However, when doctrine and  training developers are being used as instructors, developers are not  available to perform their primary task of developing, reviewing, and  updating Army doctrine and curricula for TRADOC courses, which could  affect the quality of training. Doctrine and curricula serve as the core for  training at TRADOC schools, and developing, updating, and reviewing  doctrine and curricula are critical to ensuring that TRADOC provides  quality training. Doctrine, in the form of field manuals and other  publications, establishes the foundation for how to think about operations  and what to train soldiers on so that they can conduct operations. From  doctrine, curricula are developed that provide a general description of  course content, among other things. Army doctrine and curricula must  complement one another so that soldiers are trained in accordance with  guidance.
Based on TRADOC guidance, doctrine should be reviewed at least every  18 months. According to a 2010 memorandum to the Department of the  Army Headquarters, TRADOC was behind in integrating lessons learned,  developing training, and updating doctrine. As a result, there is a  substantial doctrine and training development backlog. During the time of  our audit, TRADOC doctrine developers were working on 223 doctrinal  and supporting publications. As of May 2011, TRADOC had a backlog of  436 man-years for doctrine development. Our analysis of TRADOC data  shows that only 37 percent of the 447 doctrinal publications in TRADOC’s  inventory at that time were current. The remaining doctrinal publications  either needed to be developed, reviewed, or updated. Since doctrine  guides what training is needed to enable soldiers to conduct operations, if  it is not current, the quality of training provided to soldiers may be  affected.
TRADOC officials stated that as a best practice, curricula should be  updated every 3 years. School officials stated that they try to update one- third of their curricula each year, but a number of factors, including using  training developers to serve as instructors, have led to a backlog in  updating curricula. As of April 2011, TRADOC had a backlog of 204 man- years for developing, updating, and reviewing 232 curricula that are  considered critical to train soldiers on the necessary skills needed to  perform their duties. In October 2010, TRADOC headquarters issued a  tasking order to TRADOC schools requiring them to review and update  the curricula for initial military training courses and to make necessary  changes based on relevant and improved doctrine. No similar priority has  been given for TRADOC’s schools to update other curricula. If curricula  are not kept current, students could potentially not be trained on the most  recent information, and this information is not being institutionalized for  future instruction. For example, according to school officials, having  updated curricula is important because instructors are required to teach  the information contained in those curricula. According to TRADOC  officials, most schools are allowing instructors, with approval from the  head of the school, to deviate from the curricula so that they can  incorporate current lessons learned and best practices from the field into  class instruction. While this enables individual instructors to overcome  outdated material in the curricula, there is no way to ensure that different  instructors for the same course will choose to incorporate the same  information in their instruction. As a result, TRADOC is unable to  guarantee that all students in the same course receive the same quality of  training they need to successfully perform their tasks.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: To remain a modern and capable fighting force, the Army needs a training  system that can respond to changing national security needs while  balancing competing demands for personnel. At the same time, the  Department of Defense is facing internal fiscal pressures and  emphasizing the need to find greater efficiencies across the Department  and opportunities for cost savings. In this environment, it is important that  TRADOC strengthen its approach for determining the appropriate number  and mix of personnel to serve as instructors, training developers, and  training support personnel to execute its training mission. Currently,  certain key personnel requirements models used by TRADOC are out of  date, and the command has not conducted an assessment to determine  the right mix of personnel—military, civilian, and contractor—it needs to  provide training. As a result of these limitations, TRADOC officials lack a  sound basis for quantifying concerns they have raised about manning  shortfalls among key personnel. Similarly, limitations in TRADOC’s quality  assurance program make it difficult for TRADOC to evaluate the impact of  the workforce management actions it has taken to meet increased  student workload. At the same time, the decision to use doctrine and  training development personnel as instructors has contributed to the  backlog of doctrine and curricula that need to be updated. As a result,  soldiers are not always receiving instruction on the most current and  relevant information. Strengthening its approach to determining personnel  requirements, setting priorities for updating doctrine and curricula, and  assessing the impact of its workforce measures will enable TRADOC to  make necessary adjustments and potentially achieve greater efficiencies,  save costs, and maximize the use of training resources.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To ensure that TRADOC is requesting the appropriate number and mix of  personnel to serve as instructors, training developers, and training  support personnel, we recommend that the Secretary of the Army direct  TRADOC to take the following three actions:    Develop a plan with specific implementation milestones to update its  personnel requirements models for training personnel, including   (1) updating models for instructors and training developers and   (2) developing models for field training and classroom setup  personnel not covered in the training support personnel model, and  adjust requirements accordingly.    Perform an assessment to determine the right mix of military, civilian,  and contractor personnel needed to accomplish the training mission  and make necessary adjustments to the current mix.    Establish metrics within its quality assurance program to enable  TRADOC to evaluate how its workforce management actions, such as  increasing reliance on contractors, affect the quality of training and  use the data collected from these metrics to make adjustments to  training as needed.
To ensure that soldiers are being trained on the most current and recent  information, we recommend that the Secretary of the Army direct  TRADOC to establish a plan to enable TRADOC to develop, review, and  update doctrine and curricula by (1) setting additional priority areas  beyond initial military training on which doctrine and training developers  should focus and (2) identifying timelines by which these reviews should  be completed.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD concurred with our four  recommendations. The full text of DOD’s written comments is reprinted in  appendix II.
DOD concurred with our recommendation that the Secretary of the Army  direct TRADOC to develop a plan with specific implementation milestones  to update its personnel requirements models for training personnel and  adjust requirements accordingly. In its comments, DOD stated that  TRADOC is currently undertaking an in-depth review of instructor and  training developer functions that will establish new staffing criteria for  these personnel. This study, termed the Army Learning Concept 2015, is  expected to be completed in the summer of 2012. According to DOD, the  study will also determine manning requirements for field training. DOD  added that development of a model for ammunition delivery/recovery  mentioned in the report has been completed, and documentation for this  new model is now being prepared for commandwide staffing to assist  Army headquarters in revising manning models. In a follow-up discussion,  DOD and TRADOC officials stated that they are currently updating their  instructor and training developer models and they intend to incorporate  the results of the Army Learning Concept 2015 review in subsequent  updates of those models. The officials added that classroom setup and  other training support tasks are a normal function of instructors and that  these tasks will therefore be addressed in the instructor model.
DOD concurred with our recommendation that the Secretary of the Army  direct TRADOC to perform an assessment to determine the right mix of  military, civilian, and contractor personnel needed to accomplish the  training mission and make necessary adjustments to the current mix.  DOD stated that because of the different standards and requirements for  divergent courses, there is no single standard for a mix of cadre across  TRADOC. DOD agreed that some type of study is needed and that  TRADOC will conduct this analysis and include the results in its curricula.  DOD further stated that TRADOC will also examine the potential to  include an analysis of the optimum mix of instructors within the curricula  for individual courses. According to DOD, this data would allow TRADOC  to better articulate its true needs and to understand the potential to  rebalance the existing instructors across courses in support of the new  training load.
DOD concurred with our recommendation that the Secretary of the Army  direct TRADOC to establish metrics within its quality assurance program  to enable TRADOC to evaluate how its workforce management actions— such as increasing reliance on contractors—impact the quality of training  and use the data collected from these metrics to make adjustments to  training as needed. In its comments, DOD stated that TRADOC will  implement initiatives to develop metrics and collect data that will enable it  to evaluate its workforce management actions while assisting TRADOC  and Army headquarters in assessing training effectiveness. DOD added  that establishing these metrics is contingent upon availability of resources  and funding, noting that TRADOC’s quality assurance program must  maintain the personnel required to collect this data as well as acquire  statisticians to analyze the data for management decisions. If resourced  to conduct this analysis, TRADOC anticipates developing the metrics by  August 2012. We recognize that resources are needed to develop metrics  to capture the impact of workforce management actions on the quality of  training. However, in the absence of allocating resources to develop such  metrics, TRADOC will continue to lack a sound basis for evaluating the  impact of workforce management actions on the quality of training. As a  result, TRADOC risks missing opportunities to make any necessary  adjustments that could potentially enhance its ability to maximize the use  of training resources.
Finally, DOD concurred with our recommendation that the Secretary of  the Army direct TRADOC to establish a plan to enable TRADOC to  develop, review, and update doctrine and curricula by setting additional  priority areas on which doctrine and training developers should focus and  identifying timelines by which these reviews should be completed. DOD  stated that priorities for updating TRADOC’s doctrine and curricula are  established to meet operational requirements that change based on the  needs of the force. DOD added that update requirements have  accelerated for the past decade and that TRADOC has been working to  reduce the backlog. According to DOD, TRADOC has taken certain steps  including refining guidance and establishing a plan and time frames for  updating doctrine. For example, DOD noted that the TRADOC  Commanding General has refined his doctrine development guidance in  his Doctrine 2015 strategy, which called for the doctrine development  process to be faster and accessible to the force. DOD also stated that a  transition plan for Doctrine 2015 and a plan for managing the execution of  Doctrine 2015 are being developed. We view these actions as positive  steps with respect to updating doctrine. As a result, we continue to  believe that such a plan is needed to address the backlog in curricula  development to ensure that curricula are kept current. Without such a  plan, TRADOC risks soldiers not receiving instruction on the most current  and relevant information.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Defense, the  Secretary of the Army, and the Commander of U.S. Army Training and  Doctrine Command. In addition, this report also is available at no charge  on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-9619 or pickups@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices  of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last  page of this report. Key contributors to this report are James A. Reynolds  (Assistant Director), Chaneé Gaskin, Brian Mateja, and Sonja Ware.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: As mandated by the House Armed Services Committee report  accompanying a proposed bill for the fiscal year 2011 National Defense  Authorization Act (H.R. 5136), we examined the extent to which U.S.  Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) has (1) identified the  number and type of personnel it needs for instructors, training developers,  and training support personnel to carry out its training mission and   (2) evaluated the impact of its workforce management actions on the  quality of training.
To determine the extent to which TRADOC has identified the number and  type of personnel it needs to carry out its training mission, we focused our  review on instructor, training developer, and training support personnel— personnel types that TRADOC officials identified as having key roles in  executing the training mission. We met with Department of the Army  Headquarters officials; TRADOC personnel; and operations, budget, and  training officials at TRADOC headquarters and schools. We discussed  the process for determining student workload and personnel  requirements, establishing authorized personnel levels, and allocating  personnel among Army commands resulting from the Total Army Analysis  process. In addition, we held discussions and obtained documentation  from the Army Manpower Analysis agency on the mathematical models  and studies planned or completed by TRADOC to develop manpower  estimating criteria. We also discussed the types of personnel (military,  Army civilian, or contractor) who provided training to soldiers and the  challenges associated with obtaining and using those types of personnel.  We obtained and analyzed pertinent personnel and workload  documentation to perform a trend analysis on personnel requirements,  authorized personnel levels, and student workload from fiscal year 2005  through fiscal year 2011. Our analysis of personnel data compared the  differences in required and authorized personnel for fiscal years 2005  through 2011. We focused our analysis on that time frame because we  were able to obtain more complete information from these years. In  addition, we reviewed curricula used to provide training to soldiers to  determine the type of information included in the curricula and whether  this information was current. We also examined relevant Department of  Defense (DOD), Army, and TRADOC guidance, including DOD’s policy  and procedures for determining workforce mix, the Army’s manpower  management guidance, and TRADOC’s Systems Approach to Training.  Finally, we reviewed previous reports issued by GAO and the U.S. Army  Audit Agency on personnel requirements.
To determine the extent to which TRADOC has evaluated the impact of  workforce management actions it has taken to execute its training mission  on the quality of training provided, we met with TRADOC personnel and  operations and training officials, including quality assurance, doctrine, and  training development officials, at TRADOC schools and headquarters. At  the TRADOC schools we visited, we discussed the quality assurance  instruments used to measure the quality of training provided, time frames  for conducting the evaluations, and information gained from them. In  addition, we collected examples of surveys, survey results, and  accreditation summary reports. At TRADOC headquarters, we discussed  and obtained documentation related to the Command’s ability to measure  mission effectiveness. We discussed the Command’s accreditation  process and TRADOC Headquarters’ involvement in its schools’ quality  review processes. At both TRADOC Headquarters and TRADOC schools,  we discussed challenges associated with developing, reviewing, and  updating the doctrine and curricula used to provide training. Additionally,  we obtained data on TRADOC’s doctrine and training development  workload. We reviewed and analyzed the data to determine what  percentage of the data was current and what percentage needed to be  developed, reviewed, or updated. We obtained data to show a trend in  doctrine and training development backlogs from fiscal years 2007  through 2010. We focused our analysis on that time frame because we  were able to obtain more complete information from these years. Finally,  we obtained and reviewed relevant TRADOC guidance on conducting  quality review assessments and developing, reviewing, and updating  doctrine and curricula.
We visited seven schools that were identified by TRADOC Headquarters  officials and in the TRADOC Commander’s 2010 memorandum as being  representative of TRADOC’s challenges in providing training, such as  having high student workload or using a large number of contractors. We  conducted work at the following schools:    United States Army Aviation Logistics School, Fort Eustis, Virginia;    Maritime Transportation School, Fort Eustis, Virginia;    Aviation Center of Excellence, Fort Rucker, Alabama;  Infantry School, Fort Benning, Georgia;    Military Police School, Fort Leonardwood, Missouri;  Intelligence Center of Excellence, Fort Huachuca, Arizona; and    Signals Center of Excellence, Fort Gordon, Georgia.
We also conducted work at the following locations:    Department of the Army Headquarters, Pentagon, Arlington, Virginia;    TRADOC Headquarters, Fort Monroe, Virginia;    Combined Arms Command, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas;    Army Manpower Analysis Agency, Fort Belvior, Virginia; and    Army Human Resources Command, Fort Knox, Kentucky.
We conducted this performance audit from August 2010 to September  2011 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 objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: Military Training: Army and Marine Corps Face Challenges to Address  Projected Future Requirements. GAO-10-720. Washington, D.C.: July 16,  2010.
Military Readiness: Navy Needs to Reassess Its Metrics and  Assumptions for Ship Crewing Requirements and Training. GAO-10-592.  Washington, D.C.: June 9, 2010.
Military Training: Actions Needed to Further Improve the Consistency of  Combat Skills Training Provided to Army and Marine Corps Support  Forces. GAO-10-465. Washington, D.C.: April 16, 2010.
Reserve Forces: Army Needs to Reevaluate Its Approach to Training and  Mobilizing Reserve Component Forces. GAO-09-720. Washington, D.C.:  July 17, 2009.
Military Training: Actions Needed to More Fully Develop the Army’s  Strategy for Training Modular Brigades and Address Implementation  Challenges. GAO-07-936. Washington, D.C.: August 6, 2007.
Human Capital: A Guide for Assessing Strategic Training and  Development Efforts in the Federal Government. GAO-04-546G.  Washington, D.C.: March 2004.
Defense Management: Army Needs to Address Resource and Mission  Requirements Affecting Its Training and Doctrine Command.  GAO-03-214. Washington, D.C.: February 10, 2003.