Military Education: DOD Needs to Align Academy Preparatory Schools' Mission Statements with Overall Guidance and Establish Performance Goals
Published: 2003-09-10T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Each year, the U.S. Air Force Academy, the U.S. Military Academy, and the U.S. Naval Academy combined spend tens of millions of dollars to operate preparatory schools that provide an alternative avenue for about 700 students annually to gain admission to the service academies. Service academy officials screen all applicants to identify those who they believe could succeed at the academies but who would benefit from more preparation. The Department of Defense (DOD) pays the full cost of providing this preparation. GAO was asked to review the three service academy preparatory schools, and this report specifically assesses (1) the adequacy of their current mission statements, (2) the effectiveness of these schools in accomplishing their missions, and (3) the effectiveness of DOD oversight of these schools.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The three service academy preparatory schools' current mission statements do not clearly articulate the purpose for which the schools are being used by their respective service academies. In accordance with DOD guidance and the service academies' expectations, the preparatory schools give primary consideration for enrollment to enlisted personnel, minorities, women, and recruited athletes. However, the preparatory school mission statements are not clearly aligned with DOD guidance and the academies' expectations. This is a continuing problem, which GAO first reported in 1992. Without clear mission statements, the service academies and their respective preparatory schools cannot establish goals that fully reflect the preparatory schools' intended purpose. It is difficult to evaluate how effective the preparatory schools have been in accomplishing their missions because the service academies have not established performance goals for the preparatory schools. Without specific performance goals, there is no objective yardstick against which to gauge preparatory school effectiveness, as would be consistent with the principle of best practices for ensuring optimal return on investment. The effectiveness of DOD, military service, and service academy oversight is limited because the existing oversight framework for assessing preparatory school performance does not include performance goals and measures against which to objectively assess performance. DOD and the services receive annual reports from the academies on preparatory school performance. Without stated performance goals and measures, however, the reports do not offer DOD, the services, or the service academies as good an insight into the preparatory schools' performance and their return on investment as they could.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The U.S. Air Force Academy, the U.S. Military Academy, and the U.S.  Naval Academy combined spend tens of millions of dollars each year to  operate service academy preparatory schools, preparing about 700  students for admission to the service academies. The service academies  are one of several sources of newly commissioned officers, and they are  solely responsible for sending students to the academy preparatory  schools. The service academies receive more than 10,000 applications  each year. Academy admissions officials screen all applicants and identify  those who they believe could succeed at the academies but who would  benefit from more preparation. The preparatory schools provide an  alternative avenue for these applicants to gain admission to the academies.  The Department of Defense (DOD) pays the full cost of providing  academic preparation, military orientation, and physical conditioning. In  fiscal year 2002, DOD reported that costs per graduate for the U.S. Air  Force Academy Preparatory School, the U.S. Military Academy  Preparatory School, and the U.S. Naval Academy Preparatory School were  $30,842, $41,859, and $40,850, respectively.
The House report on defense appropriations for fiscal year 2003 directed  that we review the three service academies and their preparatory schools.  As part of our review of the service academies, we reviewed DOD  oversight and admissions issues at all three service academies. We also  surveyed all students and faculty at the three academies to obtain their  perceptions of various aspects of student life at the academies. Based on  our review of the service academies, we recommended that the Secretary  of Defense, in concert with the services, enhance performance goals and  measures to improve oversight of the academies’ operations and  performance. These issues are addressed in separate reports. This report  addresses our review of all three service academy preparatory schools. As  agreed with your offices, we assessed (1) the adequacy of the current  mission statements of the preparatory schools, (2) the effectiveness of the  preparatory schools in accomplishing their missions, and (3) the  effectiveness of DOD oversight of the preparatory schools.
In addition to interviewing officials at all three preparatory schools, the  academies, the service headquarters, and DOD’s Office of the Under  Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (OUSD/P&R), we  reviewed the adequacy of the preparatory schools’ mission statements and  pertinent DOD guidance. To assess the effectiveness of the preparatory  schools in accomplishing their missions, we analyzed aggregate  preparatory school performance data for preparatory school academic  years 1993 through 2002 for four target groups of students common to all  preparatory schools: (1) enlisted personnel, (2) minorities, (3) recruited  athletes, and (4) women. Our analysis included preparatory school  admissions and graduation data for each target group. We also reviewed  DOD guidance on oversight roles, responsibilities, and reporting  requirements, as well as academy regulations and instructions. We  conducted our review between February and July 2003. Further details on  our scope and methodology are in appendix I.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Each service academy operates its own preparatory school. The U.S. Air  Force Academy Preparatory School is co-located with the U.S. Air Force  Academy in Colorado Springs, Colorado. The U.S. Military Academy  Preparatory School is located at Fort Monmouth, New Jersey, and the U.S.  Naval Academy Preparatory School is located in Newport, Rhode Island.   (See fig 1.)
During World War I, the Secretaries of the Army and the Navy nominated  enlisted personnel to their respective service academies. Many of the first  enlisted personnel did poorly on service academy entrance examinations,  and many of the slots that were created for them went unfilled. To coach  enlisted nominees for service academy entrance examinations, Army and  Navy officials formally established the Military Academy and Naval  Academy preparatory schools in 1946 and 1920, respectively. (The U.S. Air  Force Academy was created in 1954, and its preparatory school in 1961.)  The preparatory schools have evolved over the years and become more  diverse. Today, the student bodies of these schools consist of enlisted  personnel, minorities, recruited athletes, and women (see table 1).
To be admitted to a preparatory school, an applicant must meet basic  eligibility requirements. Because applicants to the academies must (1) be  unmarried, (2) be a U.S. citizen, (3) be at least 17 years of age and must not  have passed their twenty-third birthday on July 1 of the year they enter an  academy, (4) have no dependents, and (5) be of good moral character, the  preparatory schools apply the same requirements.
The preparatory schools do not charge for tuition. The enlisted personnel  who are selected to attend the preparatory schools are reassigned to the  preparatory schools as their duty stations, and these enlisted personnel  continue to be paid at the grades they earned before enrolling. Civilians  who are selected to attend the preparatory schools enlist in the reserves  and are paid about $700 per month. Enlisted personnel must complete  their military obligations if they do not complete the programs or go on to  one of the academies. Civilian students do not incur any financial or  further military obligation if they do not complete the programs or go on  to one of the academies. However, they also do not accrue any  transferable college credits while attending the preparatory schools.
The preparatory schools offer a 10-month course of instruction that  combines academic instruction, physical conditioning, and an orientation  to military life. The daily schedule includes several hours of classroom  instruction, mandatory study time, and extra instruction; time for athletics  or physical training; and some instruction in military customs and  practices. Emphasis is placed on giving each candidate as much tutorial  assistance as is necessary to maximize the individual’s potential for  success. The student body at each school is organized into a military unit  with a student chain of command that is advised by commissioned and  noncommissioned officers. This structure is intended to provide the  students with exposure to military discipline and order.
In fiscal year 2002, DOD reported that the total cost to operate all three  preparatory schools was about $22 million (see table 2). We did not  independently verify or evaluate these costs.
OUSD/P&R, the service headquarters, and the service academies have  established clear roles and responsibilities for oversight of the preparatory  schools. According to DOD Directive 1322.22 (Service Academies), the  Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness has  responsibility to assess the operations and establish policy and guidance  for uniform oversight and management of the service academies and their  preparatory schools. The service headquarters perform their oversight  over their respective academies and preparatory schools in accordance  with the directive. The superintendent of each academy reports directly to  the uniformed head of his respective service (the Chiefs of Staff for the  Army and the Air Force and the Chief of Naval Operations for the Navy), in  accordance with the chain of command for each service. The academies  perform the primary DOD oversight function for their respective  preparatory schools. The commanding officers at the Air Force and Army  preparatory schools hold the rank of colonel, and the head of the Navy’s  preparatory school holds the equivalent rank of captain. They report  directly to the superintendent of their respective service academies, in  accordance with the chain of command for each service.
Appendix II provides general information about the three service academy  preparatory schools.
section_title: Preparatory School Missions Are Not Clearly Defined
paragraphs: The three preparatory schools’ current mission statements do not clearly  define the purpose for which the schools are being used by their  respective service academies. Mission statements should define an  organization’s purpose in language that states desired outcomes. Mission  statements also bring the organization’s vision into focus, explain why it  exists, and tell what it does. Without a clear mission statement, the  organization cannot establish goals that fully reflect the organization’s  intended purpose.
Although the preparatory schools exist to help the service academies meet  their diversity needs, the schools’ mission statements simply refer to  preparing “selected personnel who meet special needs,” “selected  candidates,” or “candidates” for admission to and success at the service  academies. These mission statements are not clearly aligned with DOD  guidance, which states that primary consideration for enrollment shall be  accorded to nominees to fill officer objectives for three target groups:   (1) enlisted personnel, (2) minorities, and (3) women. Senior academy  officials told us that their expectations of the preparatory schools are  consistent with DOD guidance on enrollment objectives and that they also  rely on the preparatory schools to meet their needs for a fourth group— recruited athletes—adding that the service academies would not be able to  meet their diversity needs if the preparatory schools did not exist.  However, neither DOD nor the service academies have required the  preparatory schools to align their mission statements to reflect DOD’s  guidance and the service academies’ expectations. As a result, none of the  mission statements are explicit about the preparatory schools’ intended  purpose. Table 3 presents more detailed information on the preparatory  schools’ mission statements.
Even though the mission statements are not explicit about the schools’  intended purpose, data on the number of students belonging to target  groups who enter the preparatory schools and then enter the service  academies indicate that, in practice, the schools are giving primary  consideration for enrollment to those target groups identified by the DOD  directive and the service academies—namely, enlisted personnel,  minorities, recruited athletes, and women—and are primarily preparing  those student groups for admission to the service academies. Preparatory  school and service academy admissions data over a 10-year period  indicate that the preparatory schools are a source for the academies of  target groups—enlisted personnel, minorities, recruited athletes, and  women—identified by DOD guidance and service academy officials.  Average admissions data on the representation of targeted groups in the  preparatory schools for preparatory school academic years 1993 through  2002 are shown in figure 2. (Appendix III contains detailed enrollment  figures, by target group, for each of the preparatory schools.) Figure 3  shows the average percentage of each targeted group enrolled at the  service academies that came from the preparatory schools for the same  time period.
We first identified this lack of clarity in mission statements in our 1992  report on the preparatory schools. In the 1992 report, we concluded that  the preparatory schools’ missions were not clearly defined and that the  preparatory schools appeared to be pursuing somewhat differing goals for  the target groups of enlisted personnel, minorities, recruited athletes, and  women—the primary groups the schools served at that time. We  recommended that the Secretary of Defense determine what role the  preparatory schools should play among the services’ officer production  programs and direct the services to clarify their school missions  accordingly. To address this lack of clarity, DOD indicated that it planned  to work with the services to develop a consistent mission statement for  these schools that would be approved by May 1992. As discussed  previously, however, the preparatory schools’ current mission statements  still do not clearly define the purpose for which the schools are being used  by their respective service academies.
section_title: Preparatory Schools Maintain Performance Data, but Mission Effectiveness Is Difficult to Evaluate
paragraphs: It is difficult to evaluate how effective the preparatory schools have been  in accomplishing their missions because the service academies have not  established performance goals for their preparatory schools. The service  academies rely on the preparatory schools to meet their targeted needs for  enlisted personnel, minorities, recruited athletes, and women. The  preparatory schools collect a substantial amount of performance data for  these targeted groups. However, without mission-linked performance  goals and measures, the service academies cannot objectively and formally  assess these data to determine mission effectiveness. Without specific  performance goals, there is no objective yardstick against which to gauge  preparatory school effectiveness, as would be consistent with the  principle of best practices for ensuring optimal return on investment.
With performance goals against which to compare actual performance, an  organization can gauge how effectively it is meeting its mission. To assess  effectiveness in achieving its mission, an organization should    establish performance goals to define the level of performance to be  achieved by a program;    express such goals in an objective, quantifiable, and measurable form;    provide a basis to compare actual program results with performance  goals; and  report assessment results, including actions needed to achieve unmet  goals or make programs minimally effective.
subsections: section_title: Preparatory Schools Collect Performance Data
paragraphs: The preparatory schools collect performance data, such as the number of  students admitted to the schools, the types of students (enlisted personnel,  minorities, recruited athletes, and women) admitted, and the number who  entered and graduated from the academies. These descriptive data show,  among other things, that during the past 10 years, an average of 76 percent  of students enrolled at the preparatory schools graduated from them. Data  for this same 10-year period show that a smaller percentage of all students  admitted to the preparatory schools graduated from or are still attending  the academies. For example, 51 percent of students who were admitted to  the Air Force Academy preparatory school, 56 percent of students  admitted to the Military Academy preparatory school, and 59 percent of  students admitted to the Naval Academy preparatory school graduated  from or are still attending their respective academies. Senior officials at  the preparatory schools and academies stated that they are satisfied with  these results.
Figure 4 shows the average number of students who entered the  preparatory schools, graduated from the preparatory schools, entered the  academies, and graduated from or are still attending the academies for  preparatory school academic years 1993 through 2002.
Appendix IV provides more detailed information, for class totals and by  target groups, on the percentage of students who entered the preparatory  schools and graduated from or are still attending the academies between  preparatory school academic years 1993 and 2002. Appendix V provides  more detailed information, for class totals and target groups, on the  percentage of students who graduated from the preparatory schools for  that same time period. Appendix VI provides more detailed information,  for class totals and by target groups, on the percentage of preparatory  school graduates who accepted appointments to the academies.
section_title: Service Academies Have Not Established Performance Goals
paragraphs: The service academies have not established quantified performance goals  for their preparatory schools. However, they do have implicit  expectations. Senior officials at both the preparatory schools and the  academies told us that the preparatory schools are expected to enable  preparatory school students to (1) meet the service academies’ academic  standards and (2) graduate from the service academies at rates  comparable to the rates of students who received direct appointments to  the service academies.
A 2.0 grade point average is the minimum level of academic performance  accepted at the academies. Our analysis of academy data for the  graduating class of 2002 shows that preparatory school graduates, as a  group, exceeded the 2.0 grade point average but had slightly lower  cumulative grade point averages than did the student body as a whole.  Figure 5 shows the cumulative grade point averages for preparatory  school graduates and service academy student bodies as a whole for the  class of 2002.
For preparatory school academic years 1993 through 1998, an average of  73 percent of preparatory school graduates who accepted appointments to  the academies graduated from the service academies, while the average  rate was 78 percent of students directly admitted to the academies for the  same years. Thus, graduation rates for preparatory school graduates were  slightly lower than the rates for students directly admitted to the service  academies. The academies, however, do not have a performance target for  graduation rates for preparatory school graduates, and therefore these  rates do not necessarily represent the achievement of a desired outcome.  Figure 6 shows the average percentage of preparatory school students  who graduated from the academies and the average percentage of directly  appointed students who graduated from the academies for preparatory  school academic years 1993 through 1998. Appendix VII provides more  detailed information for comparative graduation rates for preparatory  school academic years 1993 through 1998 for each preparatory school.
We first found that DOD had not established specific performance goals  for the preparatory schools in our 1992 review on the service academy  preparatory schools. In that report, we concluded that without such goals,  DOD lacked the tools it needed to determine whether the schools were  effective. DOD still has not required the academies to establish quantified  performance goals that are clearly linked with the mission of the schools.
section_title: DOD Lacks a Complete Framework to Facilitate More Effective Oversight of the Preparatory Schools
paragraphs: The effectiveness of DOD, military service, and service academy oversight  is limited because the existing oversight framework for assessing  preparatory school performance does not include, among other things,  performance goals and mission statements—as discussed in previous  sections of this report—and objective measures against which to assess  performance. An effective oversight framework includes tracking  achievements in comparison with plans, goals, and objectives and  analyzing the differences between actual performance and planned results.  The interrelationship of these elements is essential for accountability and  proper stewardship of government resources, and for achieving effective  and efficient program results. Without formal goals and measures that are,  moreover, linked to mission statements, oversight bodies do not have  sufficient focus for their activities and cannot systematically assess an  organization’s strengths and weaknesses or identify appropriate remedies  to achieve the best value for the investment in the organization.
OUSD/P&R, the services, and the service academies have established  mechanisms to conduct oversight of the preparatory schools through DOD  guidance established in 1994. OUSD/P&R is required to assess and  monitor the preparatory schools’ operations based on the information  provided in the annual reports it requires from the service secretaries.  The service headquarters are responsible for oversight for their respective  academies and preparatory schools, and they oversee the schools’  operations through the annual preparatory school reports that they submit  to OUSD/P&R. These reports contain data on various aspects of  preparatory school performance, such as student demographic trends,  admissions trends, and attrition.
The service academies exercise direct oversight of their respective  preparatory schools and monitor the schools’ performance through  ongoing collection of data required by OUSD/P&R. For example, each of  the service academies collects preparatory school data such as the number  of students admitted to the schools, the types of students (enlisted  personnel, minorities, recruited athletes, and women) admitted, and the  number who entered and graduated from the academies.
DOD, the service headquarters, and the service academies, through these  annual assessment reports, are able to compare aspects of preparatory  school performance against prior period results. For example, service  academy data show that over the past 10 years, 51 percent of students who  were admitted to the Air Force Preparatory School, 56 percent of students  admitted to the Military Academy Preparatory School, and 59 percent of  students admitted to the Naval Academy Preparatory School graduated  from or are still attending their respective academies. Other data reported  by the preparatory schools show that the percentage of students in the  target groups admitted to the schools has varied over the past 10 years.  However, as mentioned in previous sections of this report, the preparatory  schools lack quantified performance goals that are linked to clear mission  statements. Without goals linked to clear mission statements, DOD, the  service headquarters, and the service academies do not have an objective  basis by which to judge the effectiveness of the preparatory schools’  performance of their missions.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Although the service academy preparatory schools receive oversight from  a number of organizations, they lack clear mission statements and  quantified performance goals and measures. Thus, there is no objective  yardstick against which to gauge preparatory school performance,  consistent with the principle of best practices for ensuring optimal return  on investment. This conclusion reiterates our 1992 report’s finding that the  preparatory schools lacked clear mission statements and that DOD lacked  the tools necessary to determine whether the schools were effective.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: We recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Under Secretary  of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, in concert with the service  headquarters and service academies, to    clarify the preparatory schools’ mission statements by aligning these  statements with the department’s guidance and the academies’  expectations, which target student groups for primary enrollment  consideration;    establish quantified performance goals and measures, linked with the  schools’ mission statements; and    enhance the existing oversight framework by using quantified  performance goals and measures to objectively evaluate the  performance of the preparatory schools.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD concurred with our  recommendations and indicated that the mission statements of the  preparatory schools will be aligned with DOD guidance and service  expectations and that quantitative goals will be established to create  effective measures and appropriate standards for success. DOD added that  the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness  will review and analyze these statistics over time to ensure the successful  performance of the preparatory schools. DOD’s comments are reprinted in  their entirety in appendix VIII.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees; the Secretaries of Defense, the Army, the Navy, and the Air  Force; and the Director, Office of Management and Budget. We will also  make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report will  be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
Please contact me on (202) 512-5559 if you or your staff have any  questions concerning this report. Key contributors are listed in appendix  IX.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: To assess the adequacy of the mission statements of the preparatory  schools, we interviewed officials at the following locations: the Office of  the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Washington,  D.C.; the U.S. Air Force Academy, Washington Liaison Office, Washington,  D.C.; Headquarters, Department of the Army, Personnel, Washington, D.C.;  Headquarters, Department of the Navy, Office of Plans and Policy,  Washington, D.C.; the U.S. Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs,  Colorado; the U.S. Military Academy, West Point, New York.; the U.S.  Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland; the U.S. Air Force Academy  Preparatory School, Colorado Springs, Colorado; the U.S. Military  Academy Preparatory School, Fort Monmouth, New Jersey; and the U.S.  Naval Academy Preparatory School, Newport, Rhode Island. We obtained  and reviewed Department of Defense (DOD), service, service academy,  and academy preparatory school guidance, service academy strategic  plans and instructions, and preparatory school annual reports on  operations and performance. Using data provided to us by the preparatory  schools, we analyzed aggregate data for preparatory school academic  years 1993 through 2002, by class totals and by four groups of   students—enlisted personnel, minorities, recruited athletes, and   women—to ascertain the extent to which these four groups of students  were being admitted to the preparatory schools; at what rates these four  groups of students graduated from the preparatory schools and accepted  appointments to the academies; and how well these four groups fared at  the academies in comparison with their nonpreparatory school peers. We  also reviewed relevant studies on the preparatory schools conducted by  internal and external sources.
To evaluate the effectiveness of the preparatory schools in accomplishing  their missions, we held discussions with senior service academy and  preparatory school officials to determine what results they expected the  preparatory schools to achieve, and we obtained their assessments of the  schools’ effectiveness. We reviewed and analyzed aggregate preparatory  school performance data for preparatory school academic years 1993  through 2002. We reviewed and analyzed the preparatory schools’ annual  assessment reports, as well as other relevant data gathered from the  academies and the preparatory schools. For class totals and for the four  target groups of students at each of the preparatory schools, we analyzed  the number and percentage of preparatory school students who  entered and graduated from a preparatory school;  the number and percentage of preparatory school graduates who  accepted an appointment to an academy;  the number and percentage of preparatory school graduates who  accepted an appointment to an academy and then graduated from or  are still attending an academy; and  the number and percentage of the original preparatory school students  who graduated from or are still attending an academy.
We did not independently assess data reliability, but we obtained  assurances about data completeness, accuracy, and reliability from  academy officials responsible for maintaining data for each preparatory  school.
To assess the effectiveness of DOD oversight of the preparatory schools,  we reviewed DOD guidance on oversight roles, responsibilities, and  reporting requirements, as well as academy regulations and instructions,  and discussed oversight activities with DOD, service, and service academy  officials. Additionally, we reviewed criteria on the principles of effective  management, such as those found in Internal Control Standards: Internal  Control Management and Evaluation Tool.
We conducted our review from February 2003 through July 2003 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
section_title: Appendix II: General Information about the Three Service Academy Preparatory Schools
paragraphs: Colorado Springs,  Colorado (co- located with the  U.S. Air Force  Academy)
section_title: Appendix III: Preparatory School Enrollment
subsections: section_title: U.S. Air Force Academy Preparatory School
paragraphs: Figure 7 shows the composition of each class of Air Force Academy  Preparatory School enrollees over the past 10 years. Minorities are the  largest target group at the school, averaging 48 percent of enrollment. The  percentage of recruited athletes decreased from 1993 through 1996, and it  has remained relatively constant since then at about 40 percent of  enrollment. Enlisted personnel experienced the greatest change,  constituting 12 percent of the student body in 1993, and peaking to 28  percent in 1996. Enlisted personnel averaged 18 percent of the enrolled  class from 1993 through 2002.
subsections: section_title: U.S. Military Academy Preparatory School
paragraphs: Since 1996 the percentage of enlisted personnel enrolled at the Military  Academy Preparatory School has generally declined from a high of 54  percent in 1996 to a low of 25 percent in 2002. Concurrently, the  enrollment of minorities has fluctuated between 29 and 49 percent. (See  fig. 8.)
section_title: U.S. Naval Academy Preparatory School
paragraphs: The composition of each class of Naval Academy Preparatory School  enrollees over the past 10 years is shown in figure 9. Minorities constituted  the largest target group, averaging 44 percent from 1993 through 2002.  Enlisted personnel made up, on average, 29 percent of the enrolled class,  and recruited athletes made up, on average, 31 percent of the class.
section_title: Appendix IV: Students Who Entered the Preparatory Schools and Graduated from or Are Still Attending the Academies
subsections: section_title: U.S. Air Force Academy Preparatory School
paragraphs: Figure 10 shows the percentage of all Air Force Academy Preparatory  School students who graduated from or are still attending the Air Force  Academy. From 1993 through 1998, academy graduation rates of Air Force  Preparatory School students ranged from 43 percent to 53 percent. Figure  11 shows the same data for each of the four target groups.
subsections: section_title: U.S. Military Academy Preparatory School
paragraphs: Figure 12 shows the percentage of all Army Preparatory School students  who graduated from or are still attending the Military Academy. From 1993  through 1998, academy graduation rates of Army Preparatory School  students ranged from 46 percent to 59 percent. Figure 13 shows the same  data for each of the four target groups.
section_title: U.S. Naval Academy Preparatory School
paragraphs: Figure 14 shows the percentage of all Naval Academy Preparatory School  students who graduated from or are still attending the Naval Academy.  From 1993 through 1998, academy graduation rates of Naval Academy  Preparatory School students ranged from 50 percent to 63 percent. Figure  15 shows the same data for each of the four target groups.
section_title: Appendix V: Students Who Entered the Preparatory Schools and Graduated from the Preparatory Schools
subsections: section_title: U.S. Air Force Academy Preparatory School
paragraphs: Figure 16 shows the graduation rates for the Air Force Academy  Preparatory School. In 2002, 79 percent of the students enrolled in the U.S.  Air Force Preparatory School graduated from the preparatory school. The  graduation rate remained relatively constant, averaging 78 percent from  1993 through 2002.
Air Force preparatory school graduation rates by target group are shown  in figure 17. Recruited athletes had the lowest graduation rates, averaging  67 percent over 10 years. Women and minorities had similar graduation  rates over 10 years, both averaging 83 percent. Enlisted personnel had the  highest graduation rate, averaging 85 percent over the past 10 years.
subsections: section_title: U.S. Military Academy Preparatory School
paragraphs: Figure 18 shows the trend in Army preparatory school graduation rates  over the past 10 years. In 2002, 77 percent of students in the U.S. Military  Academy Preparatory School graduated from the school. The graduation  rate increased during the past 10 years, from a low of 59 percent in 1993 to  a high of 82 percent in 2000, before declining slightly in both 2001 and  2002.
Figure 19 shows the Army preparatory school graduation rates, by target  group, over the past 10 years. The rate for women increased—in fact  doubled—from a low of 42 percent in 1993 to a high of 84 percent in 2001.  On average, minorities graduated at a higher rate—73 percent—than did  the other target groups from 1993 through 2002. Enlisted personnel had  the lowest graduation rate among the four target groups, averaging   67 percent over 10 years.
section_title: U.S. Naval Academy Preparatory School
paragraphs: Figure 20 shows the trend in overall graduation rates at the Navy  preparatory school for the past 10 years. Graduation rates at the school  generally declined until 2000, reaching a low of 68 percent in that year. The  graduation rate increased in the last 2 years, reaching 73 percent in 2002.  Graduation rates averaged 75 percent over the 10 years.
Figure 21 shows historical trends in Navy preparatory school graduation  rates for target groups. Enlisted personnel had an average graduation rate  of 83 percent, the highest among the target groups. Women and recruited  athletes had lower graduation rates, both averaging 69 percent over 10  years. Graduation rates for minorities generally declined after peaking at  90 percent in 1994 and averaged 73 percent from 1993 to 2002.
section_title: Appendix VI: Students Who Graduated from the Preparatory Schools and Accepted Appointments to the Academies
subsections: section_title: U.S. Air Force Academy Preparatory School
paragraphs: Figure 22 shows the percentage of Air Force preparatory school graduates  who accepted appointments at the Air Force Academy. This percentage  has remained relatively constant over the past 10 years. On average,   91 percent of the graduates accepted appointments to attend the Air Force  Academy.
Figure 23 shows the percentage of Air Force preparatory school students  in the four target groups–enlisted personnel, minorities, recruited athletes,  and women–who accepted an appointment to the Air Force Academy. All  four groups had similar acceptance rates of appointments for admission.  For the past 10 years, of those who graduated, an average of 91 percent of  enlisted personnel, 92 percent of minorities, 93 percent of recruited  athletes, and 90 percent of women accepted an appointment to attend the  Air Force Academy.
subsections: section_title: U.S. Military Academy Preparatory School
paragraphs: Figure 24 shows the rate at which U.S. Military Preparatory School  students accepted appointments to attend the U.S. Military Academy.  From 1993 through 2002, 97 percent of U.S. Military Academy Preparatory  School graduates accepted appointments to attend the U.S. Military  Academy.
Figure 25 shows the rate at which Army preparatory school students in the  target groups accepted appointments to attend the Military Academy. On  average, almost all students in three target groups—minorities, recruited  athletes, and women—accepted appointments into the U.S. Military  Academy from 1993 through 2002. The acceptance rate for enlisted  personnel decreased to 85 percent in 1999; however, it increased to   128 percent in 2002.
Figure 26 shows the acceptance rate, by Navy preparatory school  graduates, of appointments into the Naval Academy. Rates remained  relatively constant over 10 years, falling to a low of 87 percent in 1998 and  increasing to 100 percent in 1999. On average, 97 percent of the graduates  accepted appointments to attend the U.S. Naval Academy.
Figure 27 shows the rate at which Navy preparatory school students in the  target groups accepted appointments to attend the Naval Academy.  Women had the highest average acceptance rate among the four target  groups, averaging 100 percent over 10 years. Although acceptance rates for  enlisted personnel remained at or above 100 percent from 1999 through  2002, they had the lowest average acceptance rate, averaging 90 percent,  over 10 years. On average, 99 percent of minorities and 95 percent of  recruited athletes accepted nominations to attend the U.S. Naval Academy.
section_title: Appendix VII: Academy Graduation Rates for Preparatory School Graduates Versus Direct Appointees
subsections: section_title: U.S. Air Force Academy
paragraphs: Figure 28 shows a comparison between the Air Force Academy graduation  rates of preparatory school graduates and those of students who accepted  direct appointments to the academy. Academy graduation rates of Air  Force Academy Preparatory School graduates from 1993 through 1998  were, on average, lower than those of direct appointees. Only in 1993 was  the difference in graduation rates between preparatory school graduates  and direct appointees greater than 10 percent.
section_title: U.S. Military Academy
paragraphs: Figure 29 shows a comparison between the Military Academy graduation  rates of preparatory school graduates and those of students who accepted  direct appointments to the academy. Academy graduation rates of Military  Academy Preparatory School graduates from 1993 through 1998 were, on  average, lower than those of direct appointees.
section_title: U.S. Naval Academy
paragraphs: Figure 30 shows a comparison between the Naval Academy graduation  rates of preparatory school graduates and those of students who accepted  direct appointments to the academy. Academy graduation rates of Naval  Academy Preparatory School graduates from 1993 through 1998 were, on  average, lower than those of direct appointees.
section_title: Appendix VIII: Comments from the Department of Defense
section_title: Appendix IX: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the name above, Daniel J. Byrne, Leslie M. Gregor, David F.  Keefer, Tina M. Morgan, David E. Moser, Cheryl A. Weissman, and Susan  K. Woodward made key contributions to this report.