DOD Education Benefits: Action Is Needed to Ensure Evaluations of Postsecondary Schools Are Useful
Published: 2014-09-08T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: DOD's military Tuition Assistance Program includes partnership agreements with about 3,000 schools through which service members can pursue a postsecondary education. Through this program, service members' tuition is paid directly to participating schools and in fiscal year 2013, the program spent $540 million. The program also provides service members with education advisors, and conducts evaluations of schools to assess quality. Congress mandated that GAO provide information on the role of these advisors and on the DOD contractor evaluations of schools participating in the program.
GAO examined (1) the number of advisors and the type of advice they provide, and (2) the information collected through evaluations of schools participating in the military Tuition Assistance Program. For this work, GAO analyzed DOD data on the program from fiscal year 2011 through 2013; reviewed all DOD contractor evaluations for fiscal years 2012 and 2013; and interviewed officials from DOD and the military services, contractor staff responsible for the evaluations, and advisors at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland. GAO visited this base because many of its service members participate in the program, and some of the participating schools were evaluated by DOD's contractor in 2013.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: In fiscal year 2013, 571 Department of Defense (DOD) education advisors were available to provide information and educational support to the nearly 280,000 service members taking courses funded through the military Tuition Assistance Program. This program accommodates service members, who may regularly be reassigned to another location (including overseas), by allowing them to take classes online, directly on base, or at nearby schools. DOD advisors offer a range of services to service members such as helping them understand the types of degrees and courses schools offer and helping them develop educational goals and plans.
DOD used a contractor to conduct evaluations of schools participating in the Tuition Assistance Program, however, according to DOD, the evaluations did not provide the agency the information it needed to assess schools. This is because DOD lacked a specific plan to frame the evaluations, which according to federal standards, should clearly define the evaluation questions and methodology and address the collective knowledge, skills, and experience needed by the entity conducting the evaluations. According to DOD's contract, evaluations were to assess school quality, but the 15 areas DOD provided the contractor for evaluation were often not clearly defined and it was not clear what the contractor was to evaluate. For example, one of the areas was the “degree of congruence” among various entities involved in delivering educational services, which DOD provided the contractor without further specificity. Further, because DOD's contract did not specify all the skills needed by the contractor, DOD had to modify its contract to require such skills. However, still lacking information it needs, DOD recently decided not to renew the contract. DOD has suspended the evaluations and is exploring alternative options for evaluating schools, but does not yet have a plan to guide future efforts. Absent a plan, it will be difficult for DOD to have all of the information it needs to effectively evaluate schools.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that DOD develop a plan for future school evaluations. DOD agreed with the recommendation.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Through the Department of Defense’s (DOD) Tuition Assistance Program,  active duty service members can pursue a postsecondary education and  improve their skills. In fiscal year 2013, DOD spent $540 million on the  program, which allows service members to take courses from more than  3,000 participating schools. Service members can attend classes online  or, in some cases, at schools located on the military base or in close  proximity to the base. As part of this program, education advisors within  each of the military services are made available to service members to  help them with decisions regarding their education. DOD uses a  contractor to evaluate the quality of participating schools and submit to  DOD reports of schools with recommendations to improve the educational  services.
Senate Report No.113-85 at 35 (2013). from each service.information from DOD’s Voluntary Education Management Information  System on the number of service members enrolled in the Tuition  Assistance Program. To assess the reliability of the data on advisors and  service members, we reviewed relevant documents and interviewed  program officials. We determined that they were sufficiently reliable for  the purposes of this report. Further, for each service, we met with officials  to discuss the advisors’ role and any guidance provided to advisors and  methods of delivering advice to service members (i.e., in person, and on  websites). In addition, we visited Joint Base Andrews, Maryland—with  7,134 service members assigned to the base during fiscal year 2013, of  which 2,223 were enrolled in classes under the Tuition Assistance  Program—where we met with advisors to better understand the nature of  the advice they provide service members and how education services are  delivered. We selected this installation because (1) a large number of its  service members were enrolled in classes, (2) five schools offered  classes on base, and (3) the schools providing classes to service  members on the base and the installation were recently evaluated by  DOD’s contractor.
At the time of our review, only three evaluations from fiscal year 2014 had been  completed, which we included in our review of evaluations.
Association.the contractor’s recommendations resulting from these evaluations. To  determine how the evaluations and recommendations were used, we  interviewed DOD officials and officials for the four services and reviewed  relevant federal laws and regulations, as well as other relevant  documents.
In addition, for fiscal years 2012 through 2013, we reviewed  We conducted this performance audit from April through August 2014 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.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: DOD’s military Tuition Assistance Program helps active duty service  members—some of whom may regularly be reassigned to another  location, including overseas—pursue an education. Through partnership  agreements between DOD and more than 3,000 schools, during off-duty  hours, service members are able to take undergraduate, graduate,  vocational, licensure, certificate, and language courses. They may also  complete their high school education, if necessary.service members who participate in the program are enrolled in  undergraduate courses.
The Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness within DOD  is responsible for implementing the Tuition Assistance Program, which  includes the provision of educational counseling for service members.However, each military service is responsible for establishing and  operating its own program. Through 195 education centers located on  U.S. military bases, advisors are available to provide assistance and  information to service members pursuing their education. These bases  also make classroom space available for service members to take  classes on base, although the majority of service members enroll in  online classes.
To participate in the program, service members must meet certain  requirements. In consultation with an advisor, they must develop an  education goal and education plan, and maintain a 2.0 grade point  average (GPA) for undergraduate-level courses and a 3.0 GPA for  graduate-level courses. Service members can receive up to $250 in  tuition assistance per credit hour, with a maximum of $4,500 each year. If  the cost of tuition exceeds the amount that the program provides, service  members are eligible for other federal financial aid, such as federal grants  and loans, to cover their expenses. Tuition is paid directly to the schools  by DOD, and if a service member fails to complete a course or receives a  failing grade, the student must pay back the money for those courses.
Schools participating in the military Tuition Assistance Program must sign  DOD’s Voluntary Education Partnership memorandum of understanding  (MOU), which requires, among other things, that the schools (1) be  accredited by a national or regional accrediting agency recognized by the  Department of Education (Education); (2) comply with state  authorization requirements consistent with Education regulations; (3) be  certified to participate in federal student aid programs authorized under  Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965; (4) disclose basic  information about the school’s programs and costs, including tuition, fees,  and other charges to service members; and (5) undergo, when requested,  an evaluation of the quality of the education programs it is providing to  service members.
DOD contracts with an independent entity to assess the quality of  postsecondary educational programs and services used by service  members to assist in the improvement of these educational programs and  services. In accordance with contract requirements, the contractor was to  conduct evaluations of individual postsecondary schools. Also, for  selected military bases that have a school on the base, the contractor  was to evaluate all of the schools located on a single base and the  facilities and operations of that base that support these schools and the  delivery of education services to service members. Specifically, each year  DOD required: four evaluations of military bases (with limited scope  evaluations of the schools located on the base); two evaluations of  distance learning (or online) schools; and four evaluations of schools  located in close proximity to the base.
Education is responsible for the administration of all federal student aid  under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965. Under that act,  Education has oversight of the more than 7,200 postsecondary schools  that participate in federal student aid programs, including those that  participate in DOD’s Tuition Assistance Program (but not with respect to  compliance with DOD’s requirements). Specifically, Education must  certify a school’s eligibility to participate in federal student aid by  determining that the school is accredited by an accrediting agency it  recognizes, is authorized to operate within a state, and meets certain  administrative and financial requirements. In addition, postsecondary  schools that provide federal student aid are subject to program reviews by  Education, which are made available on its website. Education also  maintains websites that provide publicly available information about  schools that participate in federal student aid programs authorized under  Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, including graduation rates,  default rates, and costs. In addition to Education reviews, these schools  are subject to compliance and financial audits by independent auditors.
38 U.S.C. §§ 3301-3325. housing and book payments to eligible students. As part of this  program, VA is required to conduct annual compliance reviews to assess  whether postsecondary schools that receive VA educational benefits  adhere to applicable laws and regulations.
Postsecondary schools that participate in Education, VA, and DOD  education benefits programs include (1) public schools, which are  operated and funded by state or local governments; (2) nonprofit schools,  which are owned and operated by nonprofit organizations whose net  earnings do not benefit any shareholder or individual; and (3) for-profit  schools, which are privately owned and whose net earnings can benefit  individuals or shareholders.
section_title: In Fiscal Year 2013, 571 Advisors Provided Information on Programs and Educational Support to Nearly 280,000 Eligible Service Members
subsections: section_title: Since Fiscal Year 2011, the Number of Advisors Increased Slightly Overall, with the Air Force Driving Most of the Increase
paragraphs: In fiscal year 2013, 571 advisors were available to provide a range of  information on programs and educational support to nearly 280,000  service members taking courses funded under the Tuition Assistance  Program (see fig. 1). Each military service determines the number of  advisors it will allocate to support service members’ education, based on  competing priorities that balance education support with readiness needs.
Across all four services, there was a net increase of 27 advisors from  fiscal year 2011 through 2013. That increase, however, was driven  primarily by the Air Force, which added 48 advisors to its program.  According to one Air Force official, the increase was largely the result of  provisions in law requiring that service members separating from the  military be provided with transition assistance services (including  education advice). Conversely, the Navy reduced the number of its  advisors by 25. A Navy official said this decrease was due to budget cuts  resulting from sequestration. This official said that the decrease in the  number of advisors also reflects a shift within the Navy to reduce support  for off-duty education and direct it towards training that directly affects  military readiness—such as training in operating and maintaining complex  radar and fire control systems for ballistic missile defense. (See app. I for  statistics on service members and advisors participating in the Tuition  Assistance Program, fiscal years 2011 through 2013.)
From fiscal year 2011 through 2013, the number of service members  taking courses using the Tuition Assistance Program declined by 8,819  (about 3 percent), according to DOD data. DOD officials said the  decrease was due in part to a temporary suspension of the program  resulting from the automatic spending reductions to federal budgets as  part of the 2013 sequestration. Further, according to DOD officials, the  drawdown of forces in 2013 accounted for some of this decrease. As the  forces continue to draw down, the demand for tuition assistance could  drop as service members leave active duty service and are no longer  eligible for the program. Decreases in the number of active duty service  members could potentially affect the number of advisors needed in the  future.
section_title: Service Members Receive Program Information and Support from DOD Advisors and from School Personnel, as well as from Online Sources
paragraphs: To help service members pursue educational opportunities, DOD  advisors are available to provide a range of assistance and information  and service members can also receive assistance from other sources  (see fig. 2). DOD advisors, who are required to have specific training in  educational advising, are available to help service members determine  their educational goals, advise them about the range and types of schools  they can attend, and the types of courses and degrees these schools  offer. (See app. II for a description of DOD advisor qualifications.) In  addition, advisors provide information on possible sources of funding for  education, such as federal grants and loans, and discuss the program  requirements. Each of the services has guidance that describes the roles  and responsibilities of their respective DOD advisors. (See app. III for  information on guidance the services provided about the role of DOD  advisors.)
At Joint Base Andrews—where 2,223 service members were enrolled in  courses during fiscal year 2013—the two advisors we interviewed said  that as service members arrive on base they are provided with  information about Tuition Assistance Program funding, eligibility, and the  schools available. These advisors reported holding information sessions,  distributing brochures and pamphlets, posting information on the military  base’s Facebook™ page, and holding office hours for service members  who want to meet in person to receive this overview. Once a service  member decides to register for the Tuition Assistance Program, the  advisors said they are available to answer questions about the schools,  financing education, and transfer of credits if reassigned to another  location. In addition, they said that they might also explain the  differences in the types of programs schools offer and share information  such as graduation rates and other school statistics available from  Education websites. Further, the advisors we spoke with said they also  discuss a range of financing options available, including other military aid,  federal financial aid (grants and loans), and private student loans. With  respect to private student loans, which sometimes have significantly  higher interest rates than federal student loans, the advisors told us they  advise service members to exhaust all federal options to cover college  costs before pursuing private loans.
Once a service member has completed a certain number of course hours,  as required by the program, advisors we interviewed told us they work  with that individual to develop, and then approve, an education plan for  completing a specific course of study. These plans are to help students  and advisors track the student’s progress toward fulfilling course  requirements that will ultimately lead to a degree, certificate, or license.  All services require the development of an education plan for service  members.
When service members are registering for classes, advisors we  interviewed said they are the busiest. They also told us that requests for  their services vary by service member, with some requiring little  assistance. Advisors added that other support staff at the education  center on the base are available to assist service members when an  advisor is not needed. For example, support staff may answer routine  questions about the program; mail or e-mail the service member  materials; and confirm that the service member has dropped or withdrawn  from a course, or that course grades have been entered into the system.  All of the services have similar staff to perform these functions.
Further, as required by DOD, all participating schools have their own  counselors available to help service members, for example, by  recommending courses and explaining how to register for classes. At  Joint Base Andrews, counselors representing each of the five schools  operating on that base told us that they help students decide which  courses they will need to complete a degree program and help transfer  the students’ credits if they are reassigned to another duty station. These  counselors also told us that while they are able to answer routine  questions about the Tuition Assistance Program, they refer the students  to the DOD advisors for more detailed information.
Lastly, we found that DOD and each of the services provide online  information and tools about the Tuition Assistance Program through  multiple websites. For example, one of the DOD websites provides a list  of all of the schools eligible to participate in the program. In addition, all of  the services report that they are increasingly using online tools to deliver  information and support to service members. Also, the Navy relies heavily  on its online resources to help answer service members’ questions. In  addition, the Army website allows service members to register for  classes, and access information about other financial aid programs, such  as federal grants, loans, and GI bill funding, which provides funding for  veterans’ education.
section_title: Evaluations of Schools Participating in the Programs Do Not Provide DOD with Information Needed for Assessment
paragraphs: The evaluations of schools by DOD’s contractor have provided a range of  different information on schools participating in the Tuition Assistance  Program, according to DOD officials, but they do not provide the  information DOD needs to assess the schools. This is because DOD  lacked a specific plan to frame and guide the evaluations, and did not  require the contractor to develop one. According to federal standards,  an evaluation plan should clearly define the evaluation questions and  methodology and address the collective knowledge, skills, and  experience needed by the entity conducting the evaluations. According to  DOD’s contract, evaluations were to assess school quality. However, our  review of the contract found that the 15 areas for evaluation that DOD  provided to the contractor were often broad, not clearly defined, and  lacked specificity (see app. IV for list of 15 areas). For example, one area  was simply stated as “the methods whereby academic institutions are  invited on the installation.” Another simply stated “the degree of  congruence among various missions (the military, installation, and the  institutions), the education plan of the installation, the educational  programs provided by the institutions which have a MOU with the  installation and the distance learning providers.” Based on our review of  these 15 areas, it was not always clear what DOD was asking the  contractor to evaluate and how the 15 areas would be measured. For  example, in asking the contractor to assess the “degree of congruence,” it  was not clear what DOD meant and how the contractor would measure  this area. According to the contractor, DOD did not clearly define quality  and the 15 areas to be assessed were the only formal guidance provided  to them. Further, evaluation questions are critical because they frame the  scope of the assessment and drive the evaluation design, the selection of  data to collect, and the study results. For this reason, evaluation  questions must be clear and specific and use terms that can be readily  defined and measured.
Had DOD developed a specific plan to frame and guide the evaluations,  such a plan could have better positioned DOD to fully assess the skills  needed by the contractor before awarding the evaluation contract.
Specifically, DOD did not initially include requirements in its contract to  ensure that the contractor provided personnel with the requisite education  and experience needed to conduct the evaluations. Thus, DOD had to  modify its contract to obtain the needed skills (see app. V for contract  modifications). For example, in a 2013 modification, DOD required that  the contractor acquire staff with a working knowledge of measurement  methods and tools; sufficient experience in postsecondary education; and  expertise in education theories, principles, and practices; among other  skills. Although the contractor hired additional staff in time for the fiscal  year 2014 evaluations, we identified problems in some fiscal year 2013  evaluation reports that were also present in the more recent 2014  evaluation reports we reviewed, where data from student surveys were  misinterpreted and erroneously reported. Specifically, the contractor  made broad generalizations about student satisfaction with their school  based on survey responses from a non-representative sample of students  whose responses may not have been the prevailing view of the other  students who did not respond. In providing technical comments on a  draft of this report, the contractor said that they made no attempt to draw  general conclusions about the student body as a whole based on the  limited survey responses. We found, however, that several of the reports  did contain broad generalizations. For example, a recent evaluation report  stated that there was a “high overall degree of student satisfaction” with  the institution based on responses from a non-representative sample of  students.
Lastly, in some instances, we found that the contractor made  recommendations that only tangentially related to quality. For example, a  fiscal year 2012 report of the schools on one military base recommended  replacing the artwork in the classrooms with pictures of students in the  hallways to foster a positive climate. In addition, a fiscal year 2013  evaluation of one school included a recommendation that for clarity and  consistency, the school change the names of the academic terms to read  “mid-Fall,” “mid-Winter,” “mid-Spring,” and “mid-Summer.” In a fiscal year  2014 report, the contractor recommended that the school change the  term “Military Assistance” to “Tuition Assistance” in the listing of funding  sources within the school’s online application process. In providing  technical comments on a draft of this report, the contractor stated that  their contract with DOD required them to evaluate all aspects of the  course offerings provided by educational institutions under review. As a  result, the contractor said in total it made over 300 recommendations,  which were both tangential and more central to quality. For example, the  contractor cited several recommendations which they viewed as more  central to quality including recommendations that the close working  relationship between one education office and a school be maintained;  additional professional development opportunities be offered to adjunct  faculty members; and an advisor position that had recently been cut be  reinstated and filled with an experienced advisor. By not fully considering  the skills and expertise needed by the contractor before awarding the  contract, DOD risked receiving information provided from the contractor  that would not meet its needs. According to the American Evaluation  Association, agencies should ensure that contractors conducting  evaluations possess the education, skills, and experience necessary to  undertake the evaluations.
After concluding that the evaluations are not providing the information  needed, DOD decided not to renew its school evaluation contract. The  agency is suspending the evaluations and plans to refocus its evaluations  in accordance with a recently issued Executive Order. Under that  Executive Order, DOD, along with Education and VA, are to ensure that  schools provide meaningful information to service members about the  cost and quality of programs to help them make informed choices about  how to use their tuition benefits; prevent abusive and deceptive recruiting  practices that target service members; and ensure that schools provide  high-quality academic and student support services to service members,  among other things. Further, the Order requires that DOD, Education, and  VA work collaboratively to develop a comprehensive strategy for  developing student outcome measures (e.g., graduation and retention  rates) and strengthen their oversight of schools to protect service  members participating in educational programs, such as the Tuition  Assistance Program.
According to DOD officials, they are meeting with Education and VA to  discuss how they might coordinate efforts and leverage information from  these agencies. DOD officials have been discussing a process for  determining the number of school evaluations DOD will conduct each  year and how they will select the schools for evaluation. DOD officials are  also exploring whether these evaluations will be conducted under contract  or through an interagency agreement. Although DOD has several efforts  in place, it does not have a plan guiding these efforts. Fundamentally, the  agency has not yet developed a plan that includes specific questions to  frame the evaluations and the qualification requirements for those  conducting the evaluations. Unless DOD addresses these issues, it risks  receiving future evaluations that will not provide all of the information  necessary to evaluate schools.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Although the federal investment in service member education is  substantial, DOD’s current approach has left the department without the  information it needs about the quality of schools that served about  280,000 service members in fiscal year 2013. By not having a plan in  place to guide the evaluation of schools, DOD’s ability to effectively  assess the schools has been limited. Without a plan, it will be difficult for  DOD to obtain information on the quality of the schools and determine  whether any adjustments are needed in the program.
section_title: Recommendation for Executive Action
paragraphs: To improve the usefulness of information from school evaluations, we  recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Undersecretary of  Defense for Personnel and Readiness to develop a plan for future school  evaluations that includes, among other things, clearly-defined evaluation  questions and an assessment of the experience, expertise, and skills  needed by the personnel from the entity or entities conducting the school  evaluations.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft copy of this report to the Department of Defense for  review and comment. We received written comments from DOD, which  are reproduced in appendix VI. In its comments, DOD agreed with our  recommendation that a plan was needed to guide future school  evaluations. However, DOD expressed concern that we had not made  recommendations about whether the number of advisors was sufficient  relative to the number of service members they serve. As stated in our  report, each military service determines the number of advisors it will  allocate to support service members’ education, based on competing  priorities that balance education support with readiness needs. We made  no recommendations in this area in acknowledgement of the difficulty  inherent in weighing readiness needs against education needs. Further,  with respect to the advisors, DOD stated that the numbers cited in our  report can be misleading because its advisors perform other education  functions unrelated to the Tuition Assistance Program. Our report,  however, already acknowledges that advisors also support additional  service members who are participating in DOD’s other voluntary  education programs.
We also provided a draft copy of this report to the Department of  Education and the DOD contractor for review and comment, and received  technical comments, which we incorporated into the report, as  appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees, the Secretaries of Defense and Education, and other  interested parties. In addition, this report will also be available at no  charge on GAO’s website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (617) 788-0534 or emreyarrasm@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on  the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this  report are listed in appendix VII.
section_title: Appendix I: Selected Statistics Related to Active Duty Service Members and Advisors for the Military Tuition Assistance Program, Fiscal Years 2011 through 2013
subsections: section_title: Total number of advisors Army
section_title: Appendix II: DOD’s Required Basic Qualifications of Military Service Advisors
subsections: section_title: Each service requires that a military service advisor has obtained a degree that included or was supplemented by at least 24 semester hours in one or a combination of the following areas:
paragraphs: Tests and measurement: Study of the selection, evaluation, administration, scoring, interpretation, and uses of group and  individual aptitude, proficiency, interest, and other tests.  Adult education: Study of the adult as a learner, teaching-learning theories for adults, models and procedures for planning,  designing, managing, and evaluating adult learning activities.  Educational program administration: Study of the foundation and methods in organizing for adult and continuing education  programs.
Curriculum development or design: Study of the principles and techniques for development of curricula for adult or vocational  education programs.  Teaching methods: Study of teaching strategies and learning styles of the adult learner.
Guidance and counseling: Study of the purposes and methods in counseling and guidance, the role of the counselor in various  settings, approaches to counseling, and the uses of tests in the counseling situation.
Career planning: Study of career development, learning activities, systems, approaches, program coordination, use of educational  and community resources, and vocational counseling systems.
Occupational information: Study of theories of occupational choice and vocational development and their application to the  guidance process. Identification and utilization of various types of occupational information and resources.
College or university-sponsored practicum in counseling.
At least one course in Test and Measurement or Adult Education.
section_title: Service Army
paragraphs: Assist soldiers in determining appropriate educational goals (for example, occupational certificates/ diplomas,  terminal, or transferable college degrees).
Counsel (face-to-face or electronic medium) all soldiers before Tuition Assistance is initially approved to  ensure that soldiers understand their degree plan and their responsibilities regarding Tuition Assistance use.
Counsel all soldiers about the requirement to have a documented degree plan after completion of nine  semester hours of college credit with one school.  Provide information on alternative funding, such as the use of in-service GI Bill benefits and federal financial  aid. Approve an active duty soldier’s request to use Tuition Assistance for more than 8 semester hours at one  time when the soldier’s prior academic history indicates likelihood for success.
Discuss comparative cost effectiveness of similar programs when assisting the soldier in choosing a degree  program.  Explain the Tuition Assistance reimbursement requirement.  Advise active duty soldiers of their responsibility to accomplish all Tuition Assistance-related actions through  the GoArmyEd portal.  Advise soldiers with regard to enrollment with schools not accredited by a regional accrediting body  recognized by the Department of Education. Credits earned may not be accepted in transfer by regionally  accredited colleges.  Assist personnel in establishing an educational goal based on the individual’s academic background,  aptitudes, work experience, and career objectives.  Establish education plans to enable sailors to pursue their educational goals by providing information on  available education institutions, degrees, and courses.  Brief sailors on requirements for using Tuition Assistance benefits.
Recommend and/or administer appropriate or required examinations.
Assist with enrollment in schools and programs.  Provide information on financial aid programs and procedures to include assisting sailors in applying on line  to the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, http://www.fafsa.ed.gov.
Conduct regularly scheduled Education Service Officers’ education workshops for the purpose of training  military education services personnel, career counselors, and command master chiefs.  Advise enlisted and officer airmen on academic and career development from the time they enter active duty  until the time they retire or separate.   Provide counseling prior to authorization of Military Tuition Assistance for first time use on a specific  education goal. Additional counseling will be provided to meet specific needs as they arise during an  airman’s progress toward an education goal.
Counsel and assist students with application for the education benefits programs available under existing  Department of Veterans Affairs programs of title 38 of the U.S. Code to include, but not limited to, the  following: Chapter 30, Montgomery GI Bill; Chapter 32, Post-Vietnam Era Veterans Educational Assistance  Program; and Chapter 33, Post-9/11 GI Bill. Further assistance with GI Bill-related issues should be referred  to the Regional Department of Veterans Affairs Office, as appropriate.  Provide counseling in both group and individual venues so students can make informed decisions on their  eligibility for, and use of, GI Bill benefits. Counseling is appropriate when requested, but may also be  provided prior to separation or retirement in, or apart from, Transition Assistance briefings. Emphasize  potential benefits available to airmen who are scheduled to be involuntarily separated.
Guidance to advisors   Officers and enlisted marines appointed as top echelon education officers at installations, division or wing level  will provide educational guidance and counseling as follows:  Provide counseling at the first permanent duty station, at each new duty station, prior to separation, and at  other suitable intervals during their military career.  Identify and counsel, individually, those enlisted marines who do not possess a high school credential and  those officers who do not possess a baccalaureate degree.  Identify and screen all eligible Military Academic Skills Program personnel and provide for enrollment  opportunity.  Provide assistance to marines applying for Military Academic Skills Program.
Maintain official Lifelong Learning program files, records, and data.
Prepare a Lifelong Learning program education plan for all Lifelong Learning program participants.  Publicize and promote the opportunities available through the Lifelong Learning program, using a variety of  appropriate media.
section_title: Appendix IV: Fifteen Areas Covered by the DOD Contractor Evaluations
paragraphs: Appendix IV: Fifteen Areas Covered by the  DOD Contractor Evaluations Evaluation Area   The character of the academic partnership of the institution with the service to include but not limited to programs offered,  demographics, and facilities (for non-distance learning delivery), student services for all delivery learning programs, learning  resource support, library resources, institutional support for military education needs, coordination of academic institution’s  satellite offices with home campus, and the working relationship between the service’s education staff and the academic  institution personnel.
The educational needs assessment by the service.
The methods whereby academic institutions are invited on the installation.
The methods by which the installation and the academic institution assess institutional effectiveness in meeting the  educational needs of the installation and monitoring institutional compliance with the MOU or contract (if overseas).
The support provided by various levels of the military, the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, service  headquarters, major commands and installations for voluntary education.
The degree of congruence among various missions (the military, installation, and the institutions), the education plan of the  installation, the educational programs provided by the institutions which have a MOU with the installation and the distance  learning providers.
The degree of consistency of the distance learning programs for both military and civilian students and traditional in-the- classroom courses, if offered, and the consistency of satellite campus courses to home campus courses.
The responsiveness and flexibility toward service members with regard to programmatic, administrative, and academic  processes—such as flexibility in areas of admissions, credit transfer, and academic residency requirements.
The means by which students are given the opportunity to evaluate the learning they receive and how the institutions  respond to those evaluations.
The institution’s disclosure in its marketing and communication regarding its mission, accreditation, courses and programs,  services, transfer credit, tuition and fees, recruitment incentives/commissions in its enrollment and recruitment processes.
The institutional outcomes, on-campus students compared to military students, regarding retention, graduation, subject  course completion, and withdrawal rates of the students.
The resources institutions offer to support student learning.
All faculty members meet the same academic qualifications and standards in accord with the institution’s accrediting and  oversight bodies.
The institution has clear, consistent policies, measures, and procedures to evaluate the performance and needs of faculty  members.
The institution’s academic and administrative student services—standards and processes to ensure timely response to  student’s questions and concerns.
section_title: Appendix V: Evaluation Contract Modifications to Address Skills Required
paragraphs: Appendix V: Evaluation Contract Modifications  to Address Skills Required Description of DOD’s Modifications to the Contract for School Evaluations
Required that one member on the team evaluating schools have postsecondary or tuition assistance program experience.
Working knowledge of measurement methods and tools.
Expert in education theories, principles, and practices and in roles of federal and state governments sufficient to plan, evaluate,  and advise DOD voluntary education agencies and other relevant stakeholders.  2 to 3 years experience in postsecondary adult education, including one of following: voluntary education for the military,  accreditation assessment or evaluation, institutional self-studies, academic counseling or administration on postsecondary level  from an accredited institution and academic instruction, with a degree in adult education or instructional/curriculum design, with an  emphasis on designing Distance Learning Coursework.
One assessor on each assessment team must have two to three years experience in voluntary education with the military.
Assessors who have worked on previous evaluations but do not meet the qualification requirements may have requirements  waived on a case-by-case basis.
The first item was modified on October 19, 2012; the next four items were modified on September 25,  2013.
The contract for assessment services was awarded August 31, 2011, at a cost of $645,438. At the  time of our report, DOD had extended the contract twice, each time for a year, before it allowed the  contract to expire. As of June 2014, DOD had paid a total of $2,069,329 for evaluation services  provided by the contractor.
section_title: Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Defense
section_title: Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Sherri Doughty (Assistant  Director), Sandra Baxter, Kurt Burgeson, and Linda Siegel made key  contributions to this report. Also contributing to this report were Susan  Bernstein, Deborah Bland, Jessica Botsford, Holly Dye, Mimi Nguyen,  Michael Silver, and Craig Winslow.