Military Training: Continued Actions Needed to Guide DOD's Efforts to Improve Language Skills and Regional Proficiency
Published: 2010-06-29T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Today, and in the foreseeable future, military operations require U.S. personnel to work alongside multinational partners and among local populations. The Department of Defense (DOD) has placed a greater emphasis on transforming language and regional proficiency capabilities, which includes cultural awareness. GAO's prior work has found that integrated strategic plans with measurable goals and funding priorities linked to goals can help guide organizational transformations. Decision makers also require complete information to identify capability gaps and assess risk. This testimony summarizes GAO's prior work and recommendations on DOD's efforts to develop language skills and regional proficiency and the steps DOD has taken to implement our prior recommendations. Specifically, it addresses the extent to which DOD has (1) developed a strategic plan to guide its language and regional proficiency transformation efforts and (2) obtained the information it needs to identify capability gaps and assess risk. GAO's statement is based on a June 2009 report and work conducted during May 2010 through June 2010 to update the status of GAO's recommendations.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: DOD has taken steps to transform its language and regional proficiency capabilities, but it has not yet developed a comprehensive strategic plan to guide its transformation efforts. DOD established Senior Language Authorities within the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the military services, and other components, developed a governance structure to provide internal oversight over transformation efforts, updated policies, and published a Defense Language Transformation Roadmap with broad goals and objectives. Each military service has also developed or is currently developing strategies using the roadmap as guidance or as a complementary document. However, GAO reported in June 2009 that not all objectives within the 2005 roadmap were measurable and that DOD had not identified the resources required to implement roadmap tasks or linked the roadmap to funding requests. In the absence of a comprehensive plan, GAO concluded it would be difficult for DOD to guide the military services as they develop their strategies and related training programs, and ensure these efforts were consistent with DOD-wide goals. Furthermore, DOD and Congress would lack information needed to assess progress toward a successful transformation and evaluate funding requests. GAO recommended that DOD develop a strategic plan that includes measurable performance goals and objectives and investment priorities. DOD agreed with this recommendation and estimated that a strategic plan would be completed by September 2009. In June 2010, DOD officials informed GAO that the plan is undergoing final review and approval. DOD lacks the information needed to identify gaps in language and regional proficiency and to assess related risks. GAO reported in June 2009 that DOD had developed an inventory of its language capabilities for military personnel, but it did not yet have data on regional proficiency capabilities because DOD lacked an agreed-upon way to assess and validate these skills. GAO concluded that without complete information, DOD could not determine capability gaps and assess risk effectively and recommended that DOD establish a mechanism to assess and validate regional proficiency capabilities. DOD agreed with this recommendation. As of June 2010, DOD had not established such a mechanism. GAO also reported that DOD lacked a standardized methodology to aid DOD components in identifying language and regional proficiency requirements and, as a result, estimates of requirements varied widely. GAO concluded that without such a validated methodology, DOD would not have a reliable way to identify language and regional proficiency requirements. GAO recommended that DOD develop a validated methodology for identifying these requirements for all communities and all proficiency levels. DOD agreed, stating that it had two assessments underway intended to produce a standardized methodology. In June 2010, DOD officials told GAO that, based on the assessments, they had developed a methodology, which is being reviewed by senior DOD leaders.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: I am pleased to be here today to discuss our work on the Department of  Defense’s (DOD) efforts to improve the knowledge and skills of U.S.  forces to speak foreign languages and acquire greater awareness of diverse  cultures in countries and regions around the world. Today and in the  foreseeable future, military operations—including counterinsurgency and  stability operations—require U.S. military personnel to work alongside  multinational partners and interact with local populations in a variety of  regions and contexts. Because of lessons learned from ongoing operations,  especially in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as changes in the overall  security environment, DOD is placing greater emphasis on developing  language and regional proficiency within its military and civilian  workforce. In its 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review, DOD concluded that  U.S. forces would be able to perform their missions more effectively— both in the near term and against future adversaries—if they had more and  better key enabling capabilities, including language expertise. Based on  their operational experience, ground commanders have also expressed the  same view. In particular, the former U.S. commander in Afghanistan  stressed that language training is critical to conducting counterinsurgency  operations and achieving success, and stated that language training is as  important as marksmanship and other key training. Among other things,  he called for military personnel in ground combat units to obtain a certain  level of language proficiency and to better understand the Afghan culture.  In May 2010, the Secretary of Defense reinforced the need for U.S. forces  and DOD civilians to be prepared for the complexities of the operational  environment in Afghanistan and Pakistan. To that end, the Secretary  issued guidance, which included a statement about the need for aligned  training, personnel processes, and programs to provide deploying units,  leaders, and staffs with required language and cultural skills.
Congress, and this subcommittee in particular, has played a key role in  emphasizing the importance of building language skills and regional  proficiency in DOD, and in overseeing DOD’s efforts. In addition to the  subcommittee’s study on the challenges DOD faces in building language  skills and cultural competencies in the military, we have also evaluated  DOD’s progress in these areas. We issued two products, in November 2008  and June 2009, and in many cases reached similar conclusions and  recommendations as your subcommittee. In response to a mandate from  the House Armed Services Committee, in the committee report  accompanying the proposed Fiscal Year 2011 National Defense  Authorization Act, we will be continuing our work, and will be focusing  more specifically on the efforts of the Army and Marine Corps to develop  and implement language, regional expertise, and cultural awareness  training plans for general purpose forces.
Today, you asked me to discuss our June 2009 report, and in particular,  our recommendations and DOD’s progress in implementing them. My  testimony addresses the extent to which DOD has (1) developed a  strategic plan to guide its language and regional proficiency  transformation efforts and (2) obtained the information it needs to identify  capability gaps and assess risks. In summary, because of the magnitude of  such a large-scale organizational transformation, it is important that DOD  have a comprehensive strategic plan with viable performance goals,  objectives, and metrics for measuring progress. In order to identify  potential gaps, assess risks, and develop viable mitigation strategies, DOD  also needs complete information on its existing inventory of language and  regional proficiency skills as well as validated requirements of its needs.  Therefore, we recommended that DOD develop a comprehensive strategic  plan for its language and regional proficiency transformation, establish a  mechanism to assess the regional proficiency skills of its military and  civilian personnel, and develop a methodology to identify its language and  regional proficiency requirements. DOD agreed with our  recommendations and has completed some actions, and has others  underway. However, until it develops a strategic plan and has complete  information on its inventory of language and regional proficiency skills  and related requirements, it will not have a sound basis for guiding its  efforts or developing strategies to address any gaps in capabilities.
This statement is based on our June 2009 report. In addition, our  comments are based on information we obtained in May 2010 and June  2010 to update our prior work, including DOD’s progress in implementing  our recommendations. In particular, we obtained updated information  from DOD officials regarding their efforts to develop a strategic plan and a  methodology to identify language and regional proficiency requirements,  among other things. All of the work was conducted in accordance with  generally accepted government auditing standards, and our previously  published report contains additional details on the scope and methodology  for that review. 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.
subsections: section_title: DOD Has Taken Steps to Transform Language and Regional Proficiency Capabilities, but Still Needs a Comprehensive Strategic Plan to Guide Its Efforts
paragraphs: The Office of the Secretary of Defense has taken a number of steps over  the past several years to transform its language and regional proficiency  capabilities, including designating Senior Language Authorities within the  Office of the Secretary of Defense, the military services, and other DOD  components; developing a governance structure; updating policies; and  publishing the Defense Language Transformation Roadmap—the primary  document that DOD has used to guide its efforts to date. The governance  structure consists of a number of components, including the following:    Defense Language Steering Committee: comprised of Senior Language  Authorities from the military services and other DOD organizations  and chaired by the DOD Senior Language Authority, the committee  provides senior-level guidance regarding the language transformation  effort and the development of DOD’s language capabilities.
Defense Language Action Panel: comprised of less-senior  representatives from the same entities represented on the Defense  Language Steering Committee, the panel supports the activities,  functions, and responsibilities of the Defense Language Steering  Committee.
Defense Language Office: provides strategic direction and  programmatic oversight to the DOD components on present and future  requirements related to language as well as regional and cultural  proficiency, and supports the DOD Senior Language Authority in  carrying out their assigned responsibilities.
In addition to setting up a governance structure, DOD published the  Defense Language Transformation Roadmap in 2005, and in this document  established overarching goals and desired outcomes. DOD considered  these outcomes to be the same as objectives. Table 1 below shows the  roadmap’s goals and selected objectives.
For each roadmap goal, DOD identified several tasks that it planned to  complete in support of the objectives, and assigned responsibility to  various organizations for initiating efforts to complete the tasks. For  example, to support the goal of creating foundational language and  regional area expertise, one of the tasks DOD identified was to publish an  annual Strategic Language List. This list reflects languages for which DOD  has current and projected requirements and for which it intends to  allocate resources, such as to provide training and testing, and pay  incentives. The Defense Language Office has been responsible for  monitoring completion of the roadmap tasks, which totaled 43 tasks. As of  June 2010, DOD officials stated that they had completed all of the tasks  except one related to developing policy and doctrine, which they consider  to be an ongoing effort.
Using the roadmap as guidance or a complementary document, each  military service has developed or is in the process of developing a service- specific strategy for language and regional-proficiency transformation.  These strategies are intended, in part, to guide service training efforts. The  military services provide predeployment training to general purpose  forces—the amount of which depends on the unit’s mission and the  amount of time available for such training as articulated by the  commander of the unit. The services have established centers to assist in  coordinating, developing, distributing, and providing basic language and  regional proficiency training and have also taken steps to incorporate  language and regional proficiency into their professional military  education for general purpose forces.
Our prior work has shown that for a strategic plan to be helpful, it should  contain certain key elements, such as measurable performance goals and  objectives and funding priorities that are linked to goals. Table 2 below  further discusses these elements.
While the roadmap did establish goals and desired outcomes, which DOD  considered to be objectives, we found they had some limitations, and that  other key planning elements were missing. For example:    Some goals and objectives in DOD’s roadmap were not measurable or  time-bound. For example, one of DOD’s objectives is for the total force  to understand and value the tactical, operational, and strategic asset  inherent in regional expertise and language. However, we reported that  DOD does not define how it intends to measure the total force’s  understanding of language and regional expertise or provide a time  frame for achieving the objective. In the absence of measurable  objectives, DOD officials assessed progress toward goals and  objectives by tracking the number of associated roadmap tasks that  they consider to be fully operational, meaning DOD’s Senior Language  Authority had determined the intent of the task had been met.  However, this approach focused solely on the achievement of specific  tasks rather than the extent to which the outcome of these tasks  reflected progress toward language and regional proficiency  transformation goals. We also reported that DOD considered a task  fully operational before the task was complete, which further  complicated DOD’s ability to measure progress toward goals and  objectives. For example, DOD considered the roadmap task that  assigned responsibility to the Secretary of the Army to create courses  for emerging language needs to be fully operational because a plan to  build these courses had been developed. However, at the time, the  Army had not yet established the courses and DOD did not continue to  formally track the Army’s efforts.
DOD had also not identified the resources required to implement the  tasks in the roadmap or linked the roadmap to its funding requests. In  short, the roadmap did not contain any funding information; therefore,  DOD had not identified the total cost of its transformation effort. In its  annual budget requests, DOD had requested funding for 22 major  language and regional proficiency programs that it considered to be  priorities, as reflected in what it calls the Defense Language Program  of Record. However, the two documents were not clearly linked;  therefore we were unable to determine how the 22 programs related to  the tasks and activities outlined in the roadmap.
At the time of our work, DOD recognized that the roadmap was not a true  strategic plan, and that the department had reached a point with its  transformation efforts where such a plan was needed.
In the absence of a comprehensive strategic plan that includes measurable  performance goals and objectives, funding priorities linked to goals, and  accountability for achieving results, we concluded it would be difficult for  DOD to guide the military services as they develop and implement their  strategies, and supporting programs and activities, and also to ensure  these efforts were synchronized and consistent with departmentwide  goals. Furthermore, for both the department and Congress, the lack of a  comprehensive plan would make it difficult to develop or evaluate funding  requests, respectively, and assess progress towards achieving successful  transformation of language and regional proficiency capabilities.  Therefore, we recommended that DOD develop a strategic plan with all  the key elements I have mentioned. In its comments, DOD agreed and  stated that it planned to complete a strategic plan by September 2009,  which it referred to as the Defense Language and Regional Program  Strategic Plan for 2010-2015. Our latest information from DOD officials, as  of this month, is that the plan has been drafted and is undergoing final  review and approval. They expect to publish the plan later this year and  told us it will include elements such as performance goals, objectives, and  funding priorities linked to goals. They stated that an implementation plan  with metrics to measure progress will be published at a later date. While a  specific milestone has not been established, it will be important that DOD  complete this action quickly.
section_title: DOD Has Not Fully Developed the Information It Needs to Identify Gaps in Language and Regional Proficiency and Assess Risk
paragraphs: In addition to a comprehensive strategic plan, it is important for DOD to  have complete information on the current level of language and regional  proficiency within its forces as well as the requirements for these  capabilities. With this knowledge, the department can identify gaps and  assess risks. Risk assessment helps decision makers identify and evaluate  potential risks so that alternatives can be designed and implemented to  mitigate that risk. It also allows them to prioritize needs and allocate  resources based on such factors as strategic, operational, and financial  considerations. At the time of our June 2009 report, DOD had efforts  underway to gather inventory data and define requirements, but did not  yet have complete information. Since then, DOD has made some progress  in each of these areas.
subsections: section_title: Availability of Inventory Data on Language and Regional Proficiency within DOD
paragraphs: At the time of our June 2009 report, DOD was in the process of developing  a strategic management tool called the Language Readiness Index. Once  fully operational, DOD expects this tool to contain inventory and  requirements data on the language and regional proficiency capabilities of  military, civilian, and contractor personnel. By matching the inventory and  requirements data, DOD intends to be able to determine potential gaps in  capabilities and assess risk to its ability to conduct current military  operations as well as potential future military operations. At the time of  our prior report, DOD had obtained information on military personnel  language skills through a combination of testing, referred to as the  Defense Language Proficiency Test, and through service members  voluntarily sharing or “self reporting” information in personnel records.  This information, which includes the name of the foreign language and the  skill level—as measured on a scale from 0 (no proficiency) to 5 (educated  native proficiency)—with respect to speaking, listening, and reading, had  been incorporated into the Language Readiness Index. However, DOD had  not yet incorporated information about the language skills of DOD  civilians and contract linguists in the Language Readiness Index, but  planned to do so.
We also reported that DOD did not yet have a complete inventory of the  regional proficiency skills of all service members or DOD civilians.  Instead, DOD only identified and tracked those military members serving  in specific occupations requiring a high level of regional proficiency, such  as Foreign Area Officers. DOD guidance provided regional proficiency  skill level guidelines—measured on a scale from 0 (prenovice) to 5  (expert)—intended to provide DOD components with benchmarks for  assessing regional proficiency needs, developing regional proficiency  curricula, and assessing DOD-wide regional proficiency capabilities.  However, these guidelines did not provide measurable definitions that  would allow for testing of particular regional proficiency levels. Unlike  language proficiency skill levels, which have been defined and can be  measured, DOD had found it difficult to define the elements needed to  assess regional proficiency levels because such a definition must take into  account knowledge and experience of historical, political, cultural,  sociological, economic, and geographic factors across many global regions  or specific foreign countries. Thus, DOD did not have a way to test or  otherwise evaluate the skills of service members or DOD civilians in  accordance with the regional proficiency guidelines in order to develop an  inventory of regional proficiency skills. Furthermore, DOD had not  established milestones for developing the ability to evaluate regional  proficiency skills.
Because DOD did not have complete information on the regional  proficiency capabilities of its military and civilian workforce or a method  to evaluate proficiency levels, we concluded it could not determine  capability gaps and assess risk effectively. Furthermore, DOD did not have  the information it needed to inform its strategic planning for language and  regional proficiency transformation. Therefore, we recommended that  DOD establish a mechanism to assess and validate the full range of  regional proficiency capabilities of service members and DOD civilians— including the development of measurable definitions and milestones to  achieve an assessment—and incorporate the information into the  Language Readiness Index.
DOD agreed with this recommendation, stating that it would provide  definitions and other guidance by March 2010 that would enable the  services and defense agencies to measure and determine appropriate  regional proficiency levels. As of June 2010, DOD officials told us they had  incorporated additional information about the language skills of DOD  civilians in the Language Readiness Index and are examining the legal  considerations of gathering information for contract linguists. However,  DOD has not yet established a mechanism to assess and validate regional  proficiency skills. DOD officials stated that they had recently  commissioned a study and established an internal working group to  address this issue, but they noted that defining and measuring regional  proficiency is a difficult undertaking that has taken longer than originally  estimated. DOD anticipates completing its study on regional proficiency by  September 2011.
subsections: section_title: Status of DOD’s Efforts to Determine Language and Regional Proficiency Requirements
paragraphs: Having complete inventory data is important, but equally important is the  need to match this inventory to valid requirements. In June 2009, we  reported that DOD had developed a process to enable combatant  commanders, the military services, and other organizations to submit their  language and regional proficiency requirements. They were to identify  information such as the level of the language proficiency needed, level of  the regional proficiency needed, the occupational specialty needed, the  desired number, and the desired source for filling the need. Although DOD  outlined this process, it did not require the organizations to use a  particular methodology for identifying this information, instead leaving it  to the discretion of the organizations as to how they determined their  requirements. In the absence of a validated methodology, estimates of  requirements differed widely, especially by the combatant commands. For  example, as of February 2008, the requirements of U.S. Pacific Command  outnumbered the requirements of all other combatant commands  combined. This variance occurred primarily because U.S. Pacific  Command had included low-level language and regional proficiency  requirements associated with general purpose forces, such as language or  regional proficiency skills at proficiency levels 0 or 1, while others did not.
Without a validated methodology that was consistently applied by all  organizations, DOD did not have a reliable means to identify language and  regional proficiency requirements. Therefore, we recommended that DOD  develop a transparent, validated methodology to aid in the identification of  language and regional proficiency requirements and that its scope should  include all communities, such as general purpose forces, human- intelligence collectors, signal-intelligence analysis, Foreign Area Officers,  and DOD civilians, and all proficiency levels from the lowest levels to the  highest levels. DOD agreed with this recommendation, noting that it  planned to complete two assessments by November 2009 that would  identify a validated process to prioritize and refine DOD’s foreign language  and regional expertise requirements and produce a standardized  methodology to measure risk of identified gaps and shortfalls. At that time,  DOD noted that given the 90-day window it had established to conduct  these assessments, the scope of the assessment would be narrower than  what our recommendation called for. As of June 2010, DOD officials told  us these assessments were completed and that the results were used to  develop a validated methodology for determining language and regional  proficiency requirements. Once approved by senior leaders—estimated to  occur later this year—officials stated the methodology will be codified in  DOD guidance and that the Joint Staff would provide training to the  combatant commands on how to apply it. Officials stated that it would  then take an additional several months for the combatant commands to  determine the language and regional proficiency capability requirements.  Because it is not yet approved, we have been unable to review or assess  the methodology.
section_title: Concluding Observations
paragraphs: To respond to the evolving security environment, DOD conducts a set of  complex and wide-ranging missions, such as irregular warfare,  counterinsurgency, stability operations, and nonwarfighting activities.  DOD has acknowledged the need to build and maintain certain  fundamental capabilities, such as language and regional proficiency  capabilities, which the department has deemed critical to success in these  operations. Accordingly, DOD and the military services have undertaken  various initiatives aimed at transforming language and regional proficiency  capabilities. However, DOD has not yet produced a comprehensive  strategic plan to guide and synchronize these efforts, including aligning  service-level strategies with departmentwide goals, and it does not yet  have complete inventory and requirements data needed to properly assess  gaps and risks. As a result, DOD is not in a sound position to determine the  appropriate scope and nature of its efforts to achieve desired goals,  measure progress, and make informed  investment decisions. As DOD  completes its efforts to develop a strategic plan and capture complete  language and regional proficiency and inventory and requirements data, it  is essential that the department and the military services review and make  necessary adjustments to their approaches and ensure that future funding  requests are aligned accordingly.
Mr. Chairman this concludes my statement. I look forward to answering  any questions that you or other members of the subcommittee may have at  this time.
section_title: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: For further information on this testimony, please contact Sharon Pickup at  (202) 512-9619 or at pickups@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this statement. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony  include Patricia Lentini, Assistant Director; Edward Anderson; Gabrielle  Carrington; Nicole Harms; Susan Langley; Terry Richardson; Rebecca  Rygg; Matthew Ullengren; and Chris Watson.
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.