Language and Culture Training: Opportunities Exist to Improve Visibility and Sustainment of Knowledge and Skills in Army and Marine Corps General Purpose Forces
Published: 2011-10-31T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The Department of Defense (DOD) has emphasized the importance of developing language skills and knowledge of foreign cultures to meet current and future needs and is investing millions of dollars to provide language and culture predeployment training to its general purpose forces. DOD has also noted that such training should be viewed as a long-term investment and that training and personnel systems should better account for the knowledge and skills of service members acquired through training to help manage its forces. The committee report accompanying a proposed bill for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 5136) directed GAO to review language and culture training for Army and Marine Corps general purpose forces. For this report, GAO evaluated the extent to which these services (1) captured information in training and personnel systems on the completion of language and culture predeployment training and proficiency gained from training and (2) developed plans to sustain language skills acquired through predeployment training. GAO analyzed service documents and interviewed cognizant officials.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The Army and Marine Corps have documented some information at the unit level for service members who completed language and culture predeployment training, but the services have not fully captured information within service-level training and personnel systems on service members who completed training or their corresponding proficiency. DOD and service guidance require the services to document language and culture training completion and proficiency gained from training in service-level systems. However, GAO identified several factors that limited the services' ability to implement this guidance. For example, the Army's primary training system did not have data fields for all mandatory language and culture tasks and, as a result, units were unable to document the completion of this training. In addition, while the Army collects some language proficiency data within its primary personnel system, the Army considers these data unreliable because of weaknesses in its approach to collecting them. To improve the accuracy of information within this system, the Army established a task force in January 2011, which has identified a number of key tasks and is at varying stages of completing its work. The Marine Corps did not document language and culture predeployment training completion in any servicewide training or personnel system and a system has not been designated for this purpose. Further, the Marine Corps had not required marines who completed significant language training to take formal proficiency tests and, therefore, the service did not have language proficiency data for these marines. By not capturing information within service-level training and personnel systems on the training that general purpose forces have completed and the language proficiency gained from training, the Army and Marine Corps do not have the information they need to effectively leverage the language and culture knowledge and skills of these forces when making individual assignments and assessing future operational needs. The Army and Marine Corps have not developed plans to sustain language skills already acquired through predeployment training. The services have made considerable investments to provide some service members with extensive predeployment language training. For example, as of July 2011, over 800 soldiers have completed about 16 weeks of Afghan language training since 2010 at a cost of about $12 million. DOD and service guidance address the need to sustain language skills and the DOD strategic plan for language, regional, and culture skills calls for the services to build on existing language skills for future needs. However, we found that the services had not yet determined which service members require follow-on language training to sustain skills, the amount of training required, or appropriate mechanisms to deliver the training. Although informal follow-on training programs were available to sustain language skills, such as computer-based training, these programs were voluntary. In the absence of formal sustainment training programs to maintain and build upon service members' language skills, the Army and Marine Corps may miss opportunities to capitalize on the investments they have already made to provide predeployment language training for ongoing operations. GAO made recommendations intended to improve the availability of information on training completion and proficiency and help DOD plan for sustainment training. DOD generally agreed with the recommendations, but stated that the definition of significant language training was not intended to describe training for initial skills. However, DOD noted that current guidance does not preclude language proficiency testing at this stage.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Due to changes in the global security environment and operational  experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Department of Defense (DOD)  has emphasized the importance of developing language skills and  knowledge of foreign cultures to meet the needs of current and future  military operations. It is DOD’s policy that language and culture training  be embedded in initial military training, professional military education,  and predeployment training and integrated across the total force. DOD  has emphasized that it should better account for the language and culture  knowledge and skills of service members within the department’s  personnel management systems. These systems, which include training  and personnel systems, are used at the service level to manage  individual assignments and also provide senior leaders at the service and  department level with visibility over the capabilities of military personnel.  DOD has also stated that language and culture training must be valued  as a long-term investment and is investing millions of dollars to provide  such training to general purpose forces for ongoing military operations  and to prepare these forces for future missions. For example, in  December 2009, the Office of the Secretary of Defense directed the Army  to include a total of about $160 million in its budget submissions for fiscal  years 2011 through 2015 to establish and maintain language training  detachments on selected military installations across the services to  teach foreign languages to military and civilian personnel including those  who are preparing for deployments to Afghanistan.
In prior reports, we have identified various management challenges that  DOD faces in developing language and culture capabilities, and made  several related recommendations. In June 2009, we recommended that  DOD develop a strategic plan that includes measurable performance  goals and objectives and investment priorities and a validated  methodology for identifying language and regional proficiency  requirements, including cultural awareness, and in May 2011, we  recommended that DOD establish a defined planning process to align the  services’ language and culture training efforts. DOD has taken some  steps to address our recommendations. For example, in February 2011,  DOD published the Department of Defense Strategic Plan for Language  Skills, Regional Expertise, and Cultural Capabilities (2011-2016), but  stated that a more detailed implementation plan would be issued  separately. In particular, DOD noted that its implementation plan will  include a clearly defined planning process for working with the military  departments to coordinate and synchronize plans with the department’s  strategic goals and resources. As of September 2011, DOD is continuing  to develop the implementation plan.
The committee report accompanying a proposed bill for the National  Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 5136) directed us to  review a number of issues related to language and culture training for  Army and Marine Corps general purpose forces. As discussed above,  our May 2011 report examined the Army’s and Marine Corps’ strategic  planning efforts for language and culture capabilities and the  department’s approach for identifying language and culture training  requirements for Army and Marine Corps general purpose forces  deploying to the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility. For this  report, we evaluated the extent to which the Army and Marine Corps have  (1) captured information in service-level training and personnel systems  on the completion of language and culture predeployment training and  proficiency gained from this training and (2) developed plans to sustain  language skills acquired through predeployment training.
For the first objective, we focused on Army and Marine Corps language  and culture training programs administered since 2009 to prepare general  purpose forces for ongoing operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. Therefore,  for this review, we excluded training programs for language and regional  experts (e.g., foreign area officers and intelligence specialists) and  special operations forces. We reviewed information available in service- level training and personnel systems and department-level information  systems on service members’ completion of language and culture training  and the corresponding acquisition of skills—specifically, the time frame  when this training occurred and the proficiency service members gained  from training. We defined “proficiency” using DOD’s agreed-upon method  for measuring it. We conducted interviews with Army and Marine Corps  officials who are responsible for developing predeployment training  programs and documenting information on training completion in service- level training and personnel systems. We also discussed the extent to  which the services used these systems to record service members’  proficiency gained from this training, in particular the training that meets  DOD’s definition of significant language training. We also interviewed  officials with Army and Marine Corps units that were participating in  predeployment training and units that were deployed in Afghanistan at the  time of our review to discuss the extent to which they used service-level  training and personnel systems and other processes to document the  completion of language and culture training and any proficiency gained  from training. We assessed the Army’s and Marine Corps’ efforts in light  of DOD guidance that requires that the services document all language  and regional proficiency training, education, and experience in training  and personnel systems and Army and Marine Corps documents that note  that language and culture training completion and corresponding  proficiency should be documented in service-level systems.
For the second objective, we interviewed Army and Marine Corps training  officials to discuss the extent to which the services had developed plans  and specific training programs for general purpose forces to sustain  language skills acquired through predeployment training. We interviewed  officials with Army and Marine Corps units that were participating in  predeployment training and units that were deployed in Afghanistan at the  time of our review to discuss any formal programs used by service  members to sustain skills acquired through language training. We also  discussed other informal training programs that were available to service  members to sustain language skills. To gain an understanding of the  investments already made in predeployment language training, we  collected information from service training officials on the number of  soldiers and marines completing predeployment language training from  January 2009 through July 2011, the amount of time spent in training, and  the cost of these training programs. To ensure the reliability of our data,  we interviewed knowledgeable officials about the data and internal  controls on the systems that contain them. We determined that the data  were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this audit. We reviewed Army  and Marine Corps training programs and plans in light of DOD and  service guidance that address the need to sustain language skills and the  DOD strategic plan for language, regional, and culture skills that calls for  the services to build on existing language skills for future needs.
We conducted this performance audit from June 2010 to October 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. A more detailed discussion of  our scope and methodology can be found in appendix I.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Today, and in the foreseeable future, military operations require U.S.  personnel, in particular Army and Marine Corps ground forces, to  communicate and interact with multinational partners and local  populations. DOD, and the Army and Marine Corps, have emphasized the  need to build and sustain language and culture knowledge and skills in  the general purpose forces. The Army and Marine Corps are providing  language and culture predeployment training in support of ongoing  operations. DOD relies on formal tests to measure service members’  proficiency in a foreign language. Various training and personnel systems  exist within DOD at the service and department level.
subsections: section_title: DOD and Service-Level Guidance on Building and Sustaining Language and Culture Knowledge and Skills
paragraphs: Departmentwide and service-level strategic plans and operating concepts  emphasize the need to build and sustain language and culture knowledge  and skills in the general purpose forces (see fig. 1).
In particular, referring both to the near-term needs of current operations  and the long-term efforts to prepare military forces for future conflicts,  DOD concluded in the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review that U.S.  forces would be able to perform their missions more effectively with more  and better key enabling capabilities, including language expertise. The  Army and Marine Corps have also developed concepts to align  headquarters and forces with geographic commands around the world  and plan to provide them with specialized language and culture training  prior to deployment to conduct security force assistance and irregular  warfare missions, among others. In addition, the services are  implementing strategies to build and reinforce language and culture  knowledge and skills through training at various points of a service  member’s career through formal service institutions, such as professional  military education schools, and during predeployment training. For  example:    Beginning in 2009, the Army Command and General Staff College  began offering language courses to soldiers in targeted languages,  such as Arabic, Chinese, and French, which consist of resident  instruction, self-study, and distance learning in a modified year-long  program. In addition, the Army updated its Captains Career Course in  2010 to include 13 hours of training in the areas of cross-cultural skill  building and negotiations.    The Marine Corps has begun implementing the Regional, Culture, and  Language Familiarization career development program for all marines  that begins when marines enter military service and continues  throughout their career. As part of the program, marines are assigned  to 1 of 17 regions around the world and will be assigned an  associated language. The program is organized into three broad  areas of training (culture general, culture specific, and language  familiarization) and functionally organized within a block structure that  builds and reinforces knowledge and skills over a marine’s career.
section_title: Language and Culture Predeployment Training and Proficiency Testing for General Purpose Forces Preparing for Ongoing Operations
paragraphs: As we have previously reported, the Army and the Marine Corps have  established service-specific predeployment training requirements and are  providing their respective general purpose forces with language and  culture training that is focused on the particular area to which a unit will  deploy. Given that over the past 10 years Army and Marine Corps forces  have experienced continual operational deployments to Iraq and  Afghanistan with limited time to prepare between deployments, most  language and culture training efforts have focused on predeployment  training for ongoing operations.
For example, since July 2010, the Army has required that all soldiers  deploying to Afghanistan and Iraq complete a 4- to 6-hour online training  program that provides basic language and culture training. In addition,  commanders are required to designate at least one leader per platoon  who will have regular contact with a local population to complete 16  weeks (at least 480 hours) of on-site training at one of five language  training detachments on Army installations. If the designated leader does  not have access to a language training detachment, that soldier is  required to complete approximately 100 hours of computer-based  training. Since February 2010, the Marine Corps has required that all  deploying marines complete culture training which, for Afghanistan  deployments, service officials reported typically consists of 1 day of  training, and selected marines have been required to complete language  training with the amount determined by a mission analysis. Selected  marines can complete this training at one of two language training  detachments on Marine Corps installations or through programs at a local  community college and university. Language training detachments on  Army and Marine Corps installations provide predeployment training that  includes role playing, classroom instruction, and self-directed learning  (see fig. 2).
DOD relies on the Defense Language Proficiency Test system of tests to  measure an individual’s proficiency in a foreign language. The test is  administered in a Web-based format to measure proficiency in the  listening and/or reading modalities. The speaking modality is tested in  person or by telephone. Test scores are reported as Interagency  Language Roundtable skill levels measured on a scale from 0 (no  proficiency) to 5 (functionally native proficiency). DOD guidance also  establishes broad regional proficiency skill level guidelines. These  guidelines include culture knowledge and skills and are intended to  provide DOD components with benchmarks for assessing regional  proficiency needs, for developing initial and sustainment regional  proficiency curricula at service and professional military education  schools, and for assessing regional proficiency capabilities. Our prior  work has found that DOD has not yet established a way to test or  otherwise evaluate the culture knowledge and skills of service members  in accordance with these guidelines.
section_title: Various Service- and Department-Level Training and Personnel Systems Exist
paragraphs: The Army and Marine Corps maintain a number of service-level training  and personnel systems. At the department level, DOD maintains several  additional information systems that draw upon or provide data to the  services’ training and personnel systems. Table 1 provides information on  key Army and Marine Corps training and personnel systems and other  DOD information systems.
section_title: Army and Marine Corps Have Captured Limited Information on Language and Culture Predeployment Training for Ongoing Operations
paragraphs: The Army and Marine Corps have captured some information at the unit  level for those service members who completed language and culture  predeployment training for ongoing operations. DOD guidance requires  that the services document all language and regional proficiency training,  education, and experience, which includes culture, in service training and  personnel systems and use this information in force management  processes. Service documents also note that language and culture  training completion and corresponding proficiency should be documented  in service-level systems. However, we identified several factors that  limited the Army’s and Marine Corps’ ability to capture information within  service-level training and personnel systems on service members’  completion of language and culture training and their corresponding  proficiency gained from this training.
subsections: section_title: Army and Marine Corps Capture Information at the Unit Level on the Completion of Language and Culture Predeployment Training
paragraphs: Officials with Army and Marine Corps units we spoke with who were  preparing for deployments or who were deployed in Afghanistan at the  time of our review reported that they documented which service members  completed language and culture predeployment training on spreadsheets  and paper rosters that were stored at the unit level. For example:    Officials with an Army brigade deployed in Afghanistan in December  2010 reported that its subordinate battalions recorded soldiers who  completed mandatory language and culture training tasks on unit  attendance rosters.    Officials from an Army brigade preparing for deployment to  Afghanistan in March 2011 stated that companies and battalions  within the brigade documented an individual soldier’s completion of  required language and culture predeployment training on manually  completed computer spreadsheets. During predeployment training,  companies and battalions reported summaries of the status and  completion of critical training tasks, including language and culture  tasks, on a weekly basis to the brigade headquarters.    Officials from Marine Corps battalions preparing for deployment to  Afghanistan in November and December 2010 stated that units used  manually completed computer spreadsheets to document the number  of marines who completed language and culture predeployment  training requirements and unit training completion percentages were  routinely reported to the regiment headquarters.
Army and Marine Corps training officials reported that the approaches  used to capture information on the completion of predeployment training  provided unit commanders with some visibility over the number of soldiers  and marines who completed language and culture predeployment  training.
section_title: Army Training and Personnel Systems Do Not Contain Complete Information on Language and Culture Predeployment Training Completion and Corresponding Proficiency
paragraphs: The Army requires that all of its units use the Digital Training  Management System to document soldiers’ completion of individual  soldier training and collective training conducted at the unit level.  Moreover, in July 2010, the Army released specific guidance that directed  units to input language and culture predeployment training in the Digital  Training Management System. According to an Army regulation and a  Digital Training Management System information paper, the intent of  capturing training information in electronic soldier records is to enable  decision makers at the service level to track and monitor soldiers, ensure  that training records are automatically transferred with a soldier when he  or she is reassigned to another unit, and provide visibility to senior  leaders that can inform force management decisions.
Units we interviewed reported, however, that they did not record the  completion of all mandatory language and culture predeployment training  tasks within the Digital Training Management System. Although the  system provides a single data field for units to record information for basic  language and culture training, the Army has multiple, mandatory  language and culture predeployment training requirements. Because only  one field exists, units we spoke with stated that inconsistent information  was recorded in that field. In some cases, units recorded basic culture  training in the field but did not record predeployment language training.  For example, officials with battalions preparing to deploy to Afghanistan in  March 2011 reported they did not record information in this field for  soldiers who completed mandatory language training at an on-site  language training detachment. At the time of our review, the Army had not  yet established data fields within the Digital Training Management System  that would allow training officials to document soldiers’ completion of all  mandatory language and culture training tasks. In bringing this fact to the  attention of the Army, service headquarters officials stated that the Army  has considered adding new data fields within the Digital Training  Management System for all required language and culture predeployment  training tasks, but as of July 2011, had not done so. Without data fields  available that are clearly aligned with all mandatory training tasks, units  have been unable to document which soldiers completed language and  culture training.
We also found that the Army had not recorded language proficiency in its  primary training systems, despite the fact that these systems have data  fields to record this information. In December 2010, the Army reinforced  its prior guidance that directed that units record training in the Digital  Training Management System and also stated that units should record  training within the Army Training Requirements and Resources System to  enable tracking of cultural knowledge and foreign language proficiency.  Service officials reported that, as of July 2011, nearly 100 percent of the  more than 800 soldiers who completed training at a language training  detachment met the Army standard for language proficiency in the  speaking and listening modalities. However, information on the  language proficiency of these soldiers was unavailable in either of these  systems. Unit officials we spoke with reported that they did not record  soldiers’ language proficiency gained from training at a language training  detachment within the Digital Training Management System, but rather  tracked the number of soldiers who met the Army’s language proficiency  standard on unit spreadsheets. Training managers responsible for  inputting data in the Army Training Requirements and Resources System  also reported that they did not record language proficiency data for  soldiers who completed this training. Officials stated that information on  language proficiency is typically documented within the Army’s personnel  system.
The Army’s primary personnel system (the Total Army Personnel  Database) has the capability to capture language proficiency. While the  Army collects some language proficiency data within this system, the  Army considers these data unreliable because of weaknesses in its  approach to collecting them. For all soldiers, including those who  complete training at a language training detachment, the Army utilizes a  paper form to document soldiers’ language proficiency. Upon completing  training at a language training detachment, the Army has provided  soldiers with a test to determine proficiency in the listening and speaking  modalities and a testing official records the corresponding proficiency on  this form. The form should then be passed on to a soldier’s local training  manager and to the Army Human Resources Command. The Army  Human Resources Command is required to ensure that language  proficiency data are current and accessible to the Department of the Army  staff and personnel managers. According to Army officials, the command  updates these data in soldiers’ personnel records within the Total Army  Personnel Database. However, Army officials described several  weaknesses in this process that result in unreliable data. For example,  the Army relies on hand-delivered hard copy forms, which introduce  multiple opportunities for these forms to be lost or human error in data  entry. Depending on the type of language test, language proficiency  data are also reported to the Defense Manpower Data Center, which  maintains personnel and manpower data for all service members,  including language test scores. For Web-based tests, test scores are  automatically transferred to the Defense Manpower Data Center. For in- person or telephone tests, a testing official records the test score and  sends the results to the Defense Manpower Data Center. Army officials  explained that a data link does not currently exist to transfer data between  the Defense Manpower Data Center and the Total Army Personnel  Database and therefore language proficiency data have not been  routinely documented in soldiers’ personnel records. Because the Total  Army Personnel Database is also intended to provide data on soldiers’  language proficiency for the department’s Language Readiness Index,  officials responsible for managing the Language Readiness Index  reported that departmentwide visibility over service members’ language  proficiency is limited by the lack of accurate and timely service data.
To better understand examples of limitations in the Army’s ability to  capture information within the Army’s training and personnel systems on  the completion of language and culture predeployment training and  corresponding language proficiency, see figure 3.
In January 2011, the Army established a task force to improve the  accuracy of information on service members’ language proficiency  available within the Total Army Personnel Database. At the time of our  review, the Army Language Tracking Task Force had identified a number  of key tasks and was at varying stages of completing its work. For  example, the task force is working to establish a direct data link between  the Defense Manpower Data Center where language test scores are  recorded and the Total Army Personnel Database. According to a task  force official, the Army plans to complete this link by early 2012.
section_title: Marine Corps Training and Personnel Systems Lack Information on Language and Culture Predeployment Training Completion and Corresponding Proficiency
paragraphs: According to Marine Corps Order 3502.6, units are required to track and  report information about the status of predeployment training in  accordance with guidance provided by the unit’s chain of command. As  discussed earlier in this report, Marine Corps units we spoke with  reported that the completion of language and culture predeployment  training for ongoing operations in Afghanistan was captured and tracked  at the unit level using informal approaches, such as spreadsheets and  paper rosters. Officials also explained that no Marine Corps service-level  system is used to record the completion of predeployment training tasks.  In its January 2011 strategy, the Marine Corps noted that no mechanism  exists within the service to track regional and cultural skills obtained  through operational experience on a servicewide basis, but that the timely  identification of marines with these skills could assist the service in  making force management decisions. The strategy also identifies the  need for the service to develop a tracking mechanism to readily identify  and leverage regional and cultural skills. As presently structured, the  Marine Corps Training Information Management System enables  servicewide tracking of the completion of institutional training and  professional military education. During our review, Marine Corps  officials stated that the service was in the process of developing a new  module within this system that, when fully implemented, would allow u to document individual and unit predeployment training. However,  according to officials, the Marine Corps has not determined if this new  module or another system would be used to track language  or culture  predeployment training tasks.
We also found that the Marine Corps had not provided formal language  tests to marines who completed significant language training for ongoing  operations in Afghanistan and, therefore, had not documented their  language proficiency within its primary personnel system (the Marine  Corps Total Force System) or any other system. According to officials,  most marines selected for Afghan language training (about 30 marines  per battalion) received approximately 40 hours of training that primarily  focused on basic rapport building and memorization of survival phrases.  Due to the limited number of hours of training, Marine Corps officials  stated that these training programs were not designed to produce  measurable language proficiency. In discussions with units preparing for  deployments to Afghanistan and with training providers, we found that  some marines completed more extensive language training. For example,  Marine Corps officials estimated that about 15 percent of marines  selected for language training completed an advanced language training  program that consisted of 160 hours of live instruction at a language  training detachment on Camp Lejeune or Camp Pendleton, which also  included a minimum of an additional 72 hours of self-directed learning via  computer-based language training. In addition, our analysis found that  about 1,000 marines attended training programs at a local community  college and university since 2009 that ranged from 160 to 320 hours of  Afghan language training.
In cases where service members complete a significant language training  event as defined by DOD and service guidance, the Marine Corps is  responsible for administering the Defense Language Proficiency Test  system of tests to measure language proficiency. However, although  several language training programs met the criteria established in DOD  and service guidance, we found that the Marine Corps had not required  marines who completed significant language training to take a Defense  Language Proficiency Test system of tests to measure their language  proficiency. Therefore, the Marine Corps does not have language  proficiency data for these marines. Marine Corps officials told us that they  are reviewing the potential applicability of using a new Defense Language  Proficiency Test that has been specifically designed to assess lower  levels of language proficiency, but formal decisions on whether to use this  test for general purpose force marines who completed significant Afghan  language training have not yet been made.
By not capturing information within service-level training and personnel  systems on the training that general purpose forces have completed and  the proficiency they gained from training, the Army and Marine Corps do  not have the information they need to effectively leverage the language  and culture knowledge and skills of these forces when making individual  assignments and assessing future operational needs.
section_title: Army and Marine Corps Have Not Developed Plans to Sustain Language Skills Already Acquired through Predeployment Training
paragraphs: DOD and service guidance address the need to sustain language skills  and the DOD strategic plan for language, regional, and culture skills calls  for the services to build on existing language skills for future needs. The  Army and Marine Corps have made considerable investments in time and  resources to provide some service members with extensive  predeployment language training, but have not developed plans to  sustain language skills already acquired through this training. We found  that the Army and Marine Corps had not yet determined which service  members require follow-on training, the amount of training required, or  appropriate mechanisms for delivering the training.
subsections: section_title: DOD and Service Guidance on Sustainment Training for Language Skills
paragraphs: DOD guidance instructs the services to develop sustainment language  and regional proficiency training and education plans for language  professionals and language-skilled personnel. Likewise, service  documents reinforce the need to sustain language skills. For example,  according to the Army’s December 2010 Culture and Foreign Language  Strategy Execution Order, the Army will sustain the language skills of  soldiers who achieve low levels of language proficiency. Additionally,  the Marine Corps Language, Regional and Culture Strategy: 2011-2015  notes that without an effective sustainment program, the war-fighting  benefits from language training will be lost, which minimizes the service’s  return on investment for this training. Consequently, the strategy states  that the Marine Corps must explore and leverage all cost-effective  solutions to sustain language capabilities. Moreover, the Marine Corps  has published guidance that states that mission accomplishment and  efficiency can be enhanced if marines attain and maintain language  proficiency, even at the lowest levels of proficiency.
Additionally, a DOD strategy calls for the services to build on existing  language skills for future needs. The Department of Defense Strategic  Plan for Language Skills, Regional Expertise, and Cultural Capabilities  (2011-2016) notes that in order to meet the requirements generated by an  expanding global role, it is incumbent on the department to build on  current language skills and invest in basic and continuing language,  regional, and culture training and education. The strategy also states  that by identifying language, regional, and cultural requirements and  building these capabilities, DOD will be able to more effectively engage  with not only partners and allies, but also with the indigenous populations  in order to build rapport and establish trusting relationships.
section_title: Army and Marine Corps Have Made Considerable Investments in Predeployment Language Training
paragraphs: The Army and Marine Corps have made considerable investments in time  and resources to provide some service members with extensive  predeployment language training in order to prepare them for ongoing  operations in Afghanistan. For example, according to Army documents,  the Army spent about $12.3 million through August 2011 to establish and  maintain language training detachment sites for Afghan language training.  The Army estimated that it will spend an additional $31.6 million from  fiscal year 2012 through fiscal year 2015 to maintain these sites. The  Marine Corps has also funded Afghan language training courses at San  Diego State University and Coastal Carolina Community College. Table 2  summarizes the number of soldiers and marines who completed selected  language training programs since 2009, the length of the training, and the  estimated cost of training.
While informal language training programs exist, the Army and Marine  Corps have not developed formal plans to sustain language skills  acquired through predeployment training for ongoing operations. Officials  with Army and Marine Corps units preparing for deployment and those  deployed in Afghanistan reported that some informal follow-on training  programs were available to service members to sustain language skills,  for example, utilizing self-directed learning tools such as computer-based  training programs. However, the use of informal training options to refresh  and maintain language skills was voluntary and left to service members’  personal initiative. The Defense Language Institute Foreign Language  Center has reported that although personal initiative is necessary, it is  almost never sufficient for maintenance of such a complex skill as foreign  language proficiency.
We found that the Army and Marine Corps had not yet determined which  service members require follow-on training to sustain language skills, the  amount of training required, or appropriate mechanisms for delivering the  training. Army officials stated they recognized the need to sustain  language skills acquired through predeployment training with a formal  training program, particularly in light of the number of service members  who already received language training that will have multiple  deployments to the same region. At the time of our review, the Army was  evaluating various sustainment training options, but had not yet  developed a formal plan or identified the resources required to provide  the training. The Marine Corps is not planning to sustain the Afghan  language skills of marines that were acquired through predeployment  training with a formal training program. Marine Corps officials cited  several reasons as the basis for this approach, for example because of  the turnover of personnel within the Marine Corps from one deployment to  the next. Additionally, according to current plans, the service will provide  language training for a variety of languages as part of its career  development program. However, we found that this program is not  intended to maintain or build upon language skills already acquired by  some marines through extensive predeployment Afghan language  training. In the absence of formal sustainment training to maintain and  build upon service members’ language skills acquired for ongoing  operations at considerable expense in time and resources, the Army and  Marine Corps may miss opportunities to capitalize on the investments  they have already made to provide predeployment language training.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: DOD has recognized that its ability to identify general purpose forces that  have language and culture knowledge and skills will be critical to  managing these forces in the future. However, by not capturing  information within service-level training and personnel systems on the  completion of language and culture training and corresponding  proficiency gained from training, the Army and Marine Corps do not have  the information they need to effectively leverage the language and culture  knowledge and skills of these forces when making individual assignments  and assessing future operational needs. Further, the Army and Marine  Corps face competing demands for limited training time and resources  and, in this context, not all service members who acquired skills through  predeployment language training may require follow-on training. Despite  the fact that the Army and Marine Corps have made considerable  investments to provide some service members with extensive  predeployment language training, the services have not determined which  service members require follow-on training to sustain language skills, the  amount of training required, or appropriate mechanisms for delivering the  training. As a result, the Army and Marine Corps may not fully maximize  the return on investment already made for predeployment language  training for current operations.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: We recommend the Secretary of Defense take the following five actions.
To provide decision makers with greater visibility on the language and  culture knowledge and skills of Army and Marine Corps general purpose  forces that could inform force management processes, we recommend  that the Secretary of Defense direct the Secretary of the Army to:    Establish clearly defined data fields for all mandatory language and  culture training tasks within the Digital Training Management System  and update Digital Training Management System records for soldiers  who completed training prior to these fields being established.    Document the language proficiency for soldiers completing  predeployment language training within the Digital Training  Management System and the Army Training Requirements and  Resources System.
We further recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Secretary  of the Navy, in consultation with the Commandant of the Marine Corps,  to:    Designate which training and/or personnel systems the Marine Corps  should use to document the completion of marines’ language and  culture training.    Administer formal tests to marines completing a significant language  training event using DOD’s agreed-upon method to measure  proficiency, and ensure the results of these tests are documented in  marines’ personnel records within the Marine Corps Total Force  System.
To capitalize on the investments in time and resources made in providing  language training to service members, we recommend that the Secretary  of Defense direct the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of the  Navy, in consultation with the Commandant of the Marine Corps, to:    Determine which soldiers and marines with language skills require  follow-on training, the amount of training required, and appropriate  mechanisms for delivering the training, and make any adjustments to  training programs that may be needed.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD concurred with two  recommendations and partially concurred with three recommendations.  DOD’s comments are reprinted in their entirety in appendix II. DOD also  provided technical comments, which we incorporated into the report as  appropriate.
In addition to providing detailed responses to our recommendations, DOD  provided two general comments about our report. First, DOD pointed out  that our report noted the extent to which the Army and Marine Corps used  service-level training and personnel systems to record service members’  proficiency gained from predeployment training that meets DOD’s  definition of “significant language training.” DOD stated that, since it  believed the current definition in the report may have taken the definition  out of context, it would like to clarify what constitutes a “significant  language training event,” noting that DOD Instruction 5160.71 defines  such an event as “at least 150 hours of immersion training or 6  consecutive weeks of 5-hours-a day classroom training, or other  significant event as defined by the Secretaries of the Military Departments  and the Heads of Defense Agencies and DOD Field Activities.” DOD  stated that this definition was not intended to be associated with the initial  acquisition of a language, but rather is associated with modifying the  retesting interval for someone who has already achieved a measured  proficiency. In a follow-up discussion, DOD officials clarified that language  training offered during predeployment training falls into the category of  initial acquisition of a language, and therefore, under the instruction,  testing for proficiency is not required. These officials noted, however, that  the military services are not precluded from testing for language  proficiency at this stage, and therefore have the option of administering  tests. As we noted in our report, the Army has decided to exercise this  option and is in fact testing the proficiency of its service members upon  completing extensive predeployment training. Given the considerable  investments that the Marine Corps is making to provide some marines  with extensive language training prior to deploying to Afghanistan, we  continue to believe it is prudent for the Marine Corps to take a similar  approach to testing. In the absence of such action, we continue to believe  that DOD may be missing an opportunity to gain greater visibility of the  language skills of its forces and therefore effectively leverage this  capability when making individual assignments and assessing future  operational needs.
Second, DOD acknowledged our recommendation to develop  sustainment training programs to maintain and build upon service  members’ language skills. The department noted that DOD Instruction  5160.70 emphasizes the importance of sustainment language and  regional proficiency training and education programs for language  professionals and language-skilled personnel. DOD stated that with an  increasing number of general purpose forces attending predeployment  language training at language training detachments, the department will  examine ways to capitalize on the investments already made to ensure  that it builds, enhances, and sustains a total force with a mix of language  skills, regional expertise, and cultural capabilities to meet existing and  emerging needs.
DOD also provided detailed comments on each of our recommendations.  DOD concurred with our recommendation that the Secretary of Defense  direct the Secretary of the Army to establish clearly defined data fields for  all mandatory language and culture training tasks within the Digital  Training Management System and update Digital Training Management  System records for soldiers that completed training prior to these fields  being established. DOD stated that deficiencies within the Digital Training  Management System have been identified and that the Army, in a  December 2010 order, had directed the development of solutions to  address these deficiencies. As stated in our report, we recognize that the  Army directed that units record training in the Digital Training  Management System. However, its direction did not include requiring that  adjustments be made in the system. Specifically, it did not call for action  to be taken to add new data fields for all required language and culture  predeployment training tasks that would allow training officials to  document soldiers’ completion of these tasks. Therefore, because the  Army has not directed this action, we continue to believe that our  recommendation has merit.
DOD concurred with our recommendation that the Secretary of Defense  direct the Secretary of the Army to document the language proficiency for  soldiers completing predeployment language training within the Digital  Training Management System and the Army Training Requirements and  Resources System. DOD stated that most predeployment language  training is of such short duration that language proficiency will not be  measurable and that the department’s emphasis will be to document  language proficiency for general purpose forces completing  predeployment foundational language training (usually 16 weeks or  longer) conducted at language training detachments. DOD also noted that  the Total Army Personnel Database will remain the primary system for  recording language proficiency of Army personnel. DOD further noted that  the Army Training Requirements and Resources System already  facilitates the requirement for tracking and reporting certain language and  culture training courses. For example, DOD noted that the Army has,  within the system, assigned specific codes for all language and culture  training courses; modified functions to require a proficiency score for  these courses; and assigned codes to each of the courses for a specific  language. However, in its comments, DOD did not state whether the  Army plans to take any actions to document language proficiency within  the Digital Training Management System, as we also recommended. We  continue to believe this action is needed to provide decision makers with  better information on the language and culture knowledge and skills of  soldiers to make individual assignments and assess future operational  needs.
DOD partially concurred with our recommendation that the Secretary of  Defense direct the Secretary of the Navy, in consultation with the  Commandant of the Marine Corps, to designate which training and/or  personnel systems the Marine Corps should use to document the  completion of marines’ language and culture training. DOD stated that, as  outlined in our report, current Marine Corps systems, such as the Marine  Corps Training Information Management System, are designed to track  the completion of institutional training and professional military education,  not the completion of individual and unit-level training. DOD stated that  although efforts are being pursued that may eventually allow for this  capability, the Marine Corps believes that a comprehensive cost-benefit  analysis needs to be conducted beforehand in order to accurately capture  the costs in time, fiscal resources, and infrastructure enhancements  associated with implementation and determine whether those costs  necessary to track the completion of language and culture training at the  individual and unit levels are warranted, particularly when prioritized  against other validated operational requirements in a fiscally- and time- constrained environment. We agree that the Marine Corps should  consider the costs associated with documenting the completion of  language and culture training beyond those already incurred at the unit  level to record this information and determine whether the benefits are  warranted. As part of its analysis, we would expect that the service would  also consider the potential opportunity cost of not recording this  information, such as how it might affect the ability of decision makers to  make timely and informed decisions on assigning forces or assessing  future operational needs if they do not have complete information on the  knowledge and skills of their forces.
DOD partially concurred with our recommendation that the Secretary of  Defense direct the Secretary of the Navy, in consultation with the  Commandant of the Marine Corps, to administer formal tests to marines  completing a significant language training event using DOD’s agreed- upon method to measure proficiency, and ensure the results of these  tests are documented in marines’ personnel records with the Marine  Corps Total Force System. DOD stated that the Marine Corps’  predeployment language training programs are not specifically designed  to produce a measurable language proficiency score using DOD’s  agreed-upon method for measuring it. Rather, the programs are focused  on the military/tactical domain, and are designed to provide marines with  the communication skills necessary to accomplish a specific mission- related task/skill. DOD stated, however, that the Marine Corps is  assessing the feasibility of incorporating metrics into its predeployment  language training programs that would produce a proficiency score, such  as using the Very Low Range series of Defense Language Proficiency  Tests and oral proficiency interviews. DOD also restated the need for  clarification in our report over what constitutes “significant language  training,” noting that the current definition was not intended to represent  initial acquisition of a language but rather is associated with modifying  retesting intervals. As discussed previously, DOD officials clarified that  the military services are not precluded from testing proficiency following  the completion of courses that fall into the category of initial acquisition of  a language, such as predeployment training. As we noted in our report,  the Marine Corps has made considerable investments to provide some  marines with extensive predeployment language training prior to  deploying to Afghanistan. To date, the Marine Corps has not required  these marines to take a Defense Language Proficiency Test system of  tests to measure their language proficiency. Without this information, we  continue to believe that DOD may be missing an opportunity to gain  greater visibility of the language skills of its forces and therefore  effectively leverage this capability when making individual assignments  and assessing future operational needs.
DOD partially concurred with our recommendation that the Secretary of  Defense direct the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of the Navy,  in consultation with the Commandant of the Marine Corps, to determine  which soldiers and marines with language skills require follow-on training,  the amount of training required, and appropriate mechanisms for  delivering the training, and make any adjustments to training programs  that may be needed. DOD stated that the Army is formulating a plan for  sustainment of language skills acquired at Army language training  detachments and that such a plan would rely heavily on existing  distributed learning resources. We would expect that as the Army  develops this plan, it would specifically address which soldiers require  additional training, the amount of training required, appropriate  mechanisms for delivering the training, and whether any adjustments to  existing training programs would be made. DOD also stated that the  Marine Corps has made a decision to formally build and sustain  language, regional, and culture skills via the Regional, Culture, and  Language Familiarization program for general purpose forces that  specifically targets its officer corps and enlisted ranks starting at sergeant  and above. DOD noted that given high attrition rates for first-term enlisted  marines, applying this program or other deliberate institutional programs  designed to target the first-term enlisted population group have been  deemed cost prohibitive. For these marines, language, regional, and  culture skills are provided through predeployment training programs and  common skills training, and sustained via informal mechanisms by  providing access to language learning software and other computer- based technologies. We recognize that the Marine Corps has developed  the Regional, Culture, and Language Familiarization program that is  focused on its career force. However, as we stated in our report, the  Marine Corps has made a considerable investment in time and resources  to provide some marines with extensive predeployment language training  in order to prepare them for ongoing operations in Afghanistan, but at this  point, the Regional, Culture, and Language Familiarization program is not  intended to maintain or build upon the language skills already acquired by  these marines. In the absence of formal training to sustain these  language skills, DOD may miss opportunities to capitalize on the  investments already made to provide predeployment language training.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Defense, the  Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, the Secretary  of Army, the Secretary of the Navy, and the Commandant of the Marine  Corps. This report also is available at no charge on the GAO Web site 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 listed in appendix III.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: To address our objectives, we met with officials from the Office of the  Secretary of Defense, the Army, and the Marine Corps. To evaluate the  extent to which the Army and Marine Corps captured information within  service-level training and personnel systems on the completion of  language and culture training and proficiency gained by personnel  through training, we focused on Army and Marine Corps language and  culture predeployment training programs administered since 2009 to  prepare general purpose forces for ongoing operations in Afghanistan  and Iraq. Therefore, for this review, we excluded service training  programs for language and regional experts (e.g., foreign area officers  and intelligence specialists) and special operations forces. We reviewed  information available in service-level training and personnel systems and  department-level information systems on service members’ completion of  language and culture training and the corresponding acquisition of skills— specifically, the time frame when this training occurred and the proficiency  service members had achieved. We defined “proficiency” using the  Department of Defense (DOD) agreed-upon method for measuring it.  We conducted interviews with Army and Marine Corps officials who are  responsible for developing predeployment training programs and  documenting information on training completion in service-level training  and personnel systems. We also discussed the extent to which the  services used these systems to record any proficiency gained from  training, in particular the training that meets DOD’s definition of a  significant language training event—at least 150 hours of immersion  training or 6 consecutive weeks of 5-hour-a-day classroom training. We  also interviewed officials with Army and Marine Corps units that were  participating in predeployment training and units that were deployed in  Afghanistan at the time of our review to discuss the extent to which they  used service-level training and personnel systems and other processes to  document the completion of language and culture predeployment training  and proficiency gained from this training. In identifying Army and Marine  Corps unit personnel to speak with, we selected an illustrative  nongeneralizable sample of units that were deployed for contingency  operations or preparing to deploy during the time frame of October 2010  through June 2011. We assessed the Army’s and Marine Corps’ efforts in  light of DOD guidance that requires that the services document all  language and regional proficiency training, education, and experience in  training and personnel systems and Army and Marine Corps documents  that state that language and culture training completion and  corresponding proficiency should be documented in service-level  systems. For our review, we focused on language and culture-related  training, which DOD includes in its description of regional proficiency  skills. We also discussed with Office of the Secretary of Defense and  Army officials the content and status of ongoing departmental and Army  efforts, such as the Army’s Language Tracking Task Force, which are  intended to improve the accuracy of information on the language  proficiency of service members available in personnel systems.
To evaluate the extent to which the Army and Marine Corps have  developed plans to sustain language skills acquired through  predeployment training, we interviewed Army and Marine Corps training  officials to discuss the extent to which the services had developed  specific training programs for general purpose forces to sustain language  skills. We interviewed officials with Army and Marine Corps units that  were participating in predeployment training and units that were deployed  in Afghanistan at the time of our review to discuss formal programs used  by service members to sustain skills acquired through language training.  We also discussed other informal training programs that were available to  service members to sustain language skills. In identifying Army and  Marine Corps unit personnel to speak with, we selected an illustrative  nongeneralizable sample of units that were deployed for contingency  operations or preparing to deploy during the time frame of October 2010  through June 2011. To gain an understanding of the investments  associated with predeployment language training, we collected  information from service training officials on the number of soldiers and  marines completing training from January 2009 through July 2011, the  amount of time spent in training, and the cost of these training programs.  To ensure the reliability of our data, we interviewed knowledgeable  officials about the data and internal controls on the systems that contain  them. We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the  purposes of this audit. We reviewed Army and Marine Corps training  programs and plans in light of DOD and service guidance that emphasize  the need to sustain language skills and the DOD strategic plan for  language, regional, and culture skills that calls for the services to build on  existing language skills for future needs.
To gain insights on Army and Marine Corps units’ perspectives on  capturing information on language and culture training in service-level  training and personnel systems and discuss any steps taken to sustain  skills acquired through language training, we interviewed officials with  Army and Marine Corps units that were participating in predeployment  training and that were deployed in Afghanistan at the time of our review.  Specifically, we met with officials with one Army brigade combat team  preparing for deployment and five subordinate combat arms and support  battalions, three Marine Corps combat arms and one support battalion  preparing for deployment, and through formal requests for information  from the United States Forces Afghanistan staff, we received written  responses from three Army combat arms and two Army support brigades  deployed in Afghanistan. The team focused on combat arms units  because training guidance from the battlefield commander focused on  language training for these units.
We interviewed officials, and where appropriate obtained documentation,  at the following locations:  Office of the Secretary of Defense    Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and    Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G1    Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G2    Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G3/5/7    Assistant Secretary of the Army, Manpower and Reserve Affairs    Army Forces Command    Army Reserve Command    Army Training and Doctrine Command    Center for Army Lessons Learned    Combined Arms Center    Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center    Training and Doctrine Command Culture Center    First United States Army   Marine Corps Training and Education Command    Center for Advanced Operational Culture Learning    Marine Corps Air-Ground Task Force Training Command    Marine Corps Center for Lessons Learned    Marine Corps Forces Command    Marine Corps Forces, Pacific  I Marine Expeditionary Force    II Marine Expeditionary Force    III Marine Expeditionary Force      U.S. Forces Afghanistan We conducted this performance audit from June 2010 to October 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
paragraphs: GAO DRAFT REPORT DATED SEPTEMBER 15, 2011  GAO-12-50 (GAO CODE 351506)  “LANGUAGE AND CULTURE TRAINING:  OPPORTUNITIES EXIST TO  IMPROVE VISIBILITY AND SUSTAINMENT OF KNOWLEDGE AND  SKILLS IN ARMY AND MARINE CORPS GENERAL PURPOSE  FORCES”
RECOMMENDATION 1:  The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense  direct the Secretary of the Army to establish clearly defined data fields for all  mandatory language and culture training tasks within the Digital Training  Management System and update Digital Training Management System records for  soldiers that completed training prior to these fields being established.
DoD RESPONSE:  Concur.  The deficiencies identified within the Digital  Training Management System (DTMS) have been identified and the development  of solutions addressing these deficiencies has been directed by HQ Department of  Army Execution Order of December 2010 regarding the implementation of the  Army Culture Foreign Language Strategy.
RECOMMENDATION 2:  The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense  direct the Secretary of the Army to document the language proficiency for soldiers  completing predeployment language training within the Digital Training  Management System and the Army Training Requirements and Resources System.
DoD RESPONSE:  Concur.  Most predeployment language training is of such  short duration that language proficiency will not be measurable.  Rather, emphasis  will be to document language proficiency for general purpose forces (GPF)  completing predeployment foundational language training (usually sixteen weeks  or longer) conducted at Language Training Detachments.  The Total Army  Personnel Database will remain the primary system for recording language  proficiency of Army personnel.
The Army Training Requirements and Resources System (ATRRS) already  facilitates the requirement for tracking and reporting language and culture training  through completion of ATRRS managed training courses.  ATRRS has assigned a  specific “select code” for all identified Language Culture Training Courses for  reporting purposes.  ATRRS has modified Input and Graduate functions to require  a proficiency score for Language Culture Training Courses.  Additionally, ATRRS  has assigned a Language Identification Code to each of the Language Culture  Training Courses for a specific language.  Finally, reports can be requested within  ATRRS to track/analyze the above actions.  ATRRS routinely provides training  completion transactions to the Total Army Personnel Database in support of its  role as the Army’s authoritative source/system of record for personnel data.
RECOMMENDATION 3:  The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense  direct the Secretary of the Navy, in consultation with the Commandant of the  Marine Corps, to designate which training and/or personnel systems the Marine  Corps should use to document the completion of marines’ language and culture  training.
DoD RESPONSE:  Partially concur.  As outlined in the report, current Marine  Corps systems such as the Marine Corps Training Information Management  System (MCTIMS) are designed to track completion of institutional training and  professional military education, not completion of individual/unit-level training.   Though efforts are being pursued that may eventually allow for this capability, to  include the possible addition of a module to MCTIMS and other efforts to track  IW-related individual skills, the Marine Corps believes a comprehensive cost- benefit analysis needs to be conducted beforehand in order to:  1) accurately  capture the “real costs” in time, fiscal resources, and infrastructure enhancements  associated with implementation; and 2) determine whether those real  costs/additional expenditures in time, resources, and funding necessary to  implement tracking completion of language and culture training at the individual  and unit-levels is worth the cost, particularly when prioritized against other  validated operational requirements in a fiscally and time constrained environment.
RECOMMENDATION 4:  The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense  direct the Secretary of the Navy, in consultation with the Commandant of the  Marine Corps, to administer formal tests to marines completing a significant  language training event using DOD’s agreed upon method to measure proficiency,  and ensure the results of these tests are documented in marines’ personnel records  with the Marine Corps Total Force System.
DoD RESPONSE:  Partially concur.  The Marine Corps’ predeployment language  training programs are not specifically designed to produce a measurable global  proficiency score on the ILR scale.  The program is focused on the military/tactical  domain, and is designed to provide the Marine with the communication skills  necessary to accomplish a specific mission related task/skill.  Developing measures  of effectiveness that target performance based requirements, vice global  proficiency, is what is truly needed.  This is accomplished by the Marine Corps  during mission rehearsal exercises such as Enhanced Mojave Viper prior to  deployment.  With the introduction of the Very Low Range series of Defense  Language Proficiency Tests (DLPT) and oral proficiency interviews, the Marine  Corps is assessing the feasibility of incorporating these metrics into the  predeployment language training programs.  Additionally, clarification is required  to determine what constitutes “significant language training.”  There is concern  that the current definition being utilized may have been taken out of context, and  was not intended to represent initial acquisition of a language but rather is  associated with modifying retesting intervals.
RECOMMENDATION 5:  The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense  direct the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of the Navy, in consultation  with the Commandant of the Marine Corps, to determine which soldiers and  marines with language skills require follow-on training, the amount of training  required, and appropriate mechanisms for delivering the training, and make any  adjustments to training programs that may be needed.
DoD RESPONSE:  Partially concur.  The Marine Corps has made a decision to  formally build and sustain language, regional, and culture skills via deliberate  institutional programs for the GPF that specifically targets its Career Force.  As  outlined in the report, the Regional, Culture, and Language Familiarization  (RCLF) Program is designed to build, enhance, and sustain these critical enablers  in a focused, deliberate manner for its Career Force, comprised of its officer corps  and enlisted ranks starting at sergeant and above.  Given the very high first term  enlisted attrition rates characteristics of the Marine Corps, robust application of the  RCLF Program, or implementation of other deliberate institutional programs  designed to target the first term enlisted population group, have been deemed cost  prohibitive.  At this level, language, regional, and culture skills are provided  through predeployment training program and common skills training, and  sustained via informal mechanisms by providing access to language learning  software and other computer based technologies.
As for the Army, it is formulating a plan for sustainment of language skills  acquired at the Language Training Detachments.  Such a plan would rely heavily  on existing distributed learning resources.
section_title: Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Patricia Lentini, Assistant  Director; Nicole Harms; Mae Jones; Susan Langley; Michael Silver; Amie  Steele; Matthew Ullengren; and Chris Watson made significant  contributions to this report.