Military Training: Actions Needed to Improve Planning and Coordination of Army and Marine Corps Language and Culture Training
Published: 2011-05-26T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Today, and in the foreseeable future, military operations require U.S. personnel, in particular Army and Marine Corps ground forces, to communicate and interact with multinational partners and local populations. The committee report accompanying a proposed bill for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 directed GAO to review several issues related to language and culture training for Army and Marine Corps general purpose forces. For this report, GAO evaluated (1) the extent to which the Army and Marine Corps had developed strategies with elements such as goals, funding priorities, and metrics to guide training approaches and investments that were aligned with Department of Defense (DOD) planning efforts and (2) DOD's approach for identifying training requirements for Army and Marine Corps forces that will deploy to the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility. To do so, GAO analyzed Army and Marine Corps strategies and training requirements and interviewed cognizant officials.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The Army and Marine Corps developed service-specific language and culture strategies, but did not include some key elements to guide their training approaches and investments, and DOD-wide efforts to establish a planning process that could better align service training approaches are incomplete. The Army and Marine Corps developed broad goals and objectives within their strategies and identified some training programs and activities tied to these goals. However, the services did not always identify priorities and the investments needed to implement the training or a set of results-oriented performance metrics to assess the contributions that training programs have made collectively, which GAO and DOD have recognized can help ensure training investments are making progress toward achieving program goals and objectives. GAO found that the Army and Marine Corps did not complete underlying analyses and assign responsibilities for program performance prior to designing and implementing their strategies and associated training programs. DOD has taken steps to develop a strategic planning process to align service training approaches. For example, in February 2011, DOD published a strategic plan for language skills and cultural capabilities that outlines a broad departmentwide planning process. However, DOD has not yet set up internal mechanisms, such as procedures and milestones, by which it can reach consensus with the military services on priorities and investments. Without a clearly defined planning process, DOD does not have the tools it needs to set strategic direction for language and culture training efforts, fully align departmentwide efforts to develop plans and budget requests that reflect its priorities, and measure progress in implementing various initiatives. DOD components identified varying language and culture training requirements for Army and Marine Corps general purpose forces that will deploy to the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility, but the Command did not use a comprehensive process to synchronize these requirements. GAO surveyed 15 documents issued since June 2008 and found several variances with respect to the language to be trained and the type and duration of training. For example, in July 2010 the Army required that all forces deploying to either Afghanistan or Iraq complete a 4- to 6-hour online training program for language and culture. In September 2010, a senior Marine Corps commander directed that ground units preparing for Afghanistan deployments complete a 2-day culture course. Army and Marine Corps officials noted that training requirements changed constantly and this led to some confusion in developing training programs as well as considerable time and resources that were spent adjusting training. GAO found that contrary to DOD guidance, U.S. Central Command had not yet established a comprehensive process to approve training requirements and coordinate them with key stakeholders to ensure alignment with DOD guidance and obtain feedback on service training approaches. Without a comprehensive process, U.S. Central Command will not have a mechanism to identify and synchronize training for current and future operations, which may result in deploying forces that receive training that is inconsistent and may not meet operational needs.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that the Army and Marine Corps assign responsibilities for program performance, and identify training investments and metrics; DOD establish a defined planning process with internal mechanisms, such as procedures and milestones, to align training efforts; and U.S. Central Command establish a process to identify and synchronize training requirements. DOD generally agreed with the recommendations.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Today, and in the foreseeable future, military operations require U.S.  personnel to communicate and interact with multinational partners and  local populations. Referring both to the long-term efforts to prepare  military forces for future conflicts and the near-term needs of current  operations, the Department of Defense (DOD) emphasized in the 2010  Quadrennial Defense Review the importance of developing the language  and culture skills of the military and civilian workforce. DOD concluded  that U.S. forces would be able to perform their missions more effectively  with more and better key enabling capabilities, including language  expertise. On the basis of their operational experiences in Afghanistan and  Iraq, ground commanders have expressed the importance of language and  culture skills for general purpose forces in counterinsurgency and stability  operations, stressing, for example, that language training is as important  as marksmanship and other key training. Reinforcing the importance of  language and culture skills, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense  for Personnel and Readiness issued guidance in December 2010 setting out  DOD policy that training and personnel processes and programs should be  aligned to prepare deploying units, leaders, and staffs with the language  and cultural knowledge and skills, commensurate with their duties,  needed for the successful conduct of counterinsurgency operations. The  Army and Marine Corps have taken a variety of steps to develop language  and culture skills for general purpose forces, including the issuance of  servicewide strategies, and implementing predeployment training  programs to address the needs of current operations.
Since 2009, we have made recommendations to address a number of  challenges the department faces in developing language and culture skills  in the military. For example, 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, which  includes cultural awareness.In June 2010, we testified before the House  Armed Services Committee, Subcommittee on Oversight and  Investigations to provide an update on DOD’s progress in implementing  recommendations from our June 2009 report. At that time, we noted that  DOD had not yet produced a comprehensive strategic plan to synchronize  language and culture transformation efforts and that the department did  not have complete language and culture requirements data needed to  properly assess capability gaps and associated risks. In February 2011,  DOD published the Department of Defense Strategic Plan for Language  Skills, Regional Expertise, and Cultural Capabilities (2011-2016) noting  that a more detailed implementation plan would be issued separately with  elements such as action plans that detail specific tasks to be accomplished  and performance measures.
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 the  Army’s and Marine Corps’ respective general purpose forces. For this  report, we evaluated (1) the extent to which the Army and Marine Corps  had developed language and culture strategies with key elements, such as  goals, funding priorities, and metrics to guide training approaches and  investments that were aligned with departmentwide planning efforts; and  (2) DOD’s approach for identifying language and culture training  requirements for Army and Marine Corps general purpose forces that will  deploy to the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility. We will report  separately at a later date on other issues related to the House report,  including steps the Army and Marine Corps are taking to incorporate  language and culture in training and personnel processes.
For the first objective, we focused on the Army’s and Marine Corps’  general purpose forces. Therefore, excluded from this review were  training programs for language and regional experts (e.g., foreign area  officers and intelligence specialists), special operations forces, and service  efforts (e.g., human terrain teams) to provide culture experts to deployed  forces. We examined the Army Culture and Foreign Language Strategy  and the Marine Corps Language, Regional and Culture Strategy: 2011-2015  and training documents to determine training priorities and metrics that  have been used to measure progress in meeting service and DOD  capability needs. We reviewed these documents in the context of our prior  work, DOD budget documents, and service guidance to determine the  extent to which the Army and Marine Corps developed strategies that  identified key elements, such as goals and objectives, training programs  and priorities, resource requirements, and approaches for measuring  progress, including results-oriented performance metrics. We also  reviewed Army and Marine Corps funding data associated with the  implementation of the two services’ respective language and culture  strategies for fiscal years 2009 through 2012. To corroborate our  understanding of the documents provided, we conducted interviews with  officials responsible for developing the Army’s and Marine Corps’  respective language and culture strategies and related training programs,  as well as with Office of the Secretary of Defense officials responsible for  providing strategic direction and programmatic oversight of the  department’s language and culture programs. We also discussed the  content and status of ongoing departmental efforts that are intended to  further align language and culture training approaches with officials  representing the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Staff.
For the second objective, we focused on training requirements for the  Army’s and Marine Corps’ respective general purpose forces that are  preparing for deployments in the U.S. Central Command area of  responsibility. We reviewed statutory provisions, including certain  sections of Title 10 of the U.S. Code and related DOD guidance that  characterize the training roles and responsibilities of combatant  commanders and the military services. We examined Office of the  Secretary of Defense, U.S. Central Command, U.S. Forces Afghanistan, and  Army and Marine Corps documents published from 2008 to 2011 and  identified specific language and culture training requirements. To  corroborate our understanding of the documents provided, we conducted  interviews with officials representing the Office of the Secretary of  Defense, U.S. Central Command, U.S. Forces Afghanistan, and Army and  Marine Corps force provider and training commands to discuss the  processes they use to identify language and culture requirements for Army  and Marine Corps general purpose forces that will deploy to the U.S.  Central Command area of responsibility and steps taken to synchronize  service predeployment training so that it addresses operational needs. We  assessed these efforts in light of a DOD strategic plan that describes the  importance of establishing a robust training requirements identification  process and synchronizing service training programs with combatant  commander requirements.
We conducted this performance audit from June 2010 to May 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: DOD, the Army, and the Marine Corps have emphasized the need for  improved language and culture skills in strategic guidance and are  implementing training and education programs to begin to address these  needs.
subsections: section_title: DOD and Service-Level Guidance on Building Language and Culture Skills
paragraphs: Before September 11, 2001, DOD generally focused efforts to build  language and culture capabilities on its professional communities. As  military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq have continued, DOD has  broadened this focus to the general purpose forces. In figure 1, we show  that in departmentwide and service-level documents issued since 2005,  DOD and the Army and Marine Corps addressed the need for improved  language and culture skills.
section_title: Roles and Responsibilities for Language and Culture Training
paragraphs: The responsibilities within DOD for identifying, developing, and  maintaining language and culture capabilities are shared among several  components, including the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the  combatant commanders, and the military services. The Office of the Under  Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness provides overall policy  guidance for the defense language program and is also responsible for  reviewing the policies, plans, and programs of the DOD components to  ensure that foreign language and regional proficiency needs are adequately  addressed.
DOD has designated Senior Language Authorities within the Office of the  Secretary of Defense, the military services, and other DOD components,  and established a governance structure for DOD’s language and culture  programs, which consists of a number of entities, including the following:     Defense Language Office: provides strategic direction and  programmatic oversight to the DOD components, including the  services and combatant commands, on present and future  requirements related to language as well as regional and cultural  proficiency. The Director of the Defense Language Office, within the  Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness,  has been designated as the DOD Senior Language Authority.
Defense Language Steering Committee: comprised of Senior Language  Authorities from the military services and other DOD organizations and  chaired by the DOD Senior Language Authority, the committee  provides senior-level guidance regarding the development of DOD’s  language capabilities.
Defense Language Action Panel: comprised of less-senior  representatives from the same entities represented on the Defense  Language Steering Committee, the panel supports the activities,  functions, and responsibilities of the Defense Language Steering  Committee.
Combatant commanders, such as the Commander of U.S. Central  Command, are responsible for identifying foreign language and culture  requirements in support of operations in their geographic areas of  responsibility. In some cases, battlefield commanders, such as the  Commander of U.S. Forces in Afghanistan, may publish guidance and  other documents that specify training tasks that should be completed  before military forces deploy to an area where combat operations are  being conducted.
Each military service is responsible for training forces with the language  and culture capabilities necessary to support departmentwide and service- specific requirements and the needs of combatant commanders. Army and  Marine Corps headquarters staff and service commands develop guidance  and training programs to prepare forces with required skills, such as  language and culture. The Army and Marine Corps have published  language and culture strategies to guide servicewide efforts. Within the  Army, the Training and Doctrine Command has been designated as the  lead agency for implementing the Army Culture and Foreign Language  Strategy and has also established the Training and Doctrine Command  Culture Center. The Marine Corps has established a culture center—the  Center for Advanced Operational Culture Learning—which is responsible  for developing and implementing the aspects of the Marine Corps  Language, Regional and Culture Strategy: 2011-2015 that apply to general  purpose forces.
section_title: Overview of Language and Culture-Related Training Programs for Army and Marine Corps General Purpose Forces
paragraphs: The Army and Marine Corps provide language and culture training at  various points of a service member’s career through formal service  institutions, such as professional military education schools, and within  operational units. The following are examples:    Training offered during enrollment in formal service institutions: The  Army offers new recruits courses to build basic cultural competence  and is in the process of adjusting training programs at each of its  schools to expand the amount of cultural content in training. The Army  has also provided some soldiers with an opportunity to study a foreign  language in professional military education courses and develop  foreign language skills through self-directed, computer-based training.  The Marine Corps has begun implementing a career development  program for all marines that begins when marines enter military service  and continues throughout their career. During the initial part of the  program, marines receive training and education on general cultural  skills that that can be applied to any operational environment and an  assignment to 1 of 17 regions around the world for future instruction.  Each sequential part of the program is designed to deepen  understanding of general culture skills and build specific regional  knowledge, including some computer-based foreign language study. As  of December 2010, the Marine Corps had provided more than 7,000  officers with a regional assignment.
Predeployment training. The Army and Marine Corps offer  predeployment training programs to provide additional language and  culture instruction focused on the particular area to which a unit will  deploy. The Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center and  Army and Marine Corps culture centers provide deploying forces with  language survival kits, briefings on culture issues, and mobile training  teams that present more in-depth language and culture training.
section_title: DOD and Service-Level Funding for Language and Culture Training Programs
paragraphs: Funding for language and culture training programs is provided at the  department and service level in base and Overseas Contingency  Operations portions of the annual budget. In fiscal year 2010, DOD  received about $550 million for major language and culture programs  identified by the Defense Language Office. In addition, the Army and  Marine Corps have received funding to implement their respective  language and culture strategies. For example, in fiscal year 2010, the  Army’s Training and Doctrine Command received about $13 million for  activities related to implementing the Army Culture and Foreign Language  Strategy and the Marine Corps’ Center for Advanced Operational Culture  Learning received about $10 million to develop language and culture- related programs for general purpose forces.
Regarding funding for predeployment training, 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 for language  training sites on selected military installations to teach foreign languages  to military and civilian personnel, including Army and Marine Corps  operational units that are preparing for deployments to Afghanistan. This  training includes self-directed learning, classroom instruction, and role  playing (see figure 2). According to DOD, ultimately approximately 3,500  service members will learn basic Afghan language skills each year at its  language training sites.
For Afghanistan deployments, the focus of language training has varied  because of the multiple languages in that country. Among the country’s  many ethnic groups (which are known collectively as Afghans), Dari and  Pashto are the dominant and official languages of Afghanistan. Pashto  speakers are found in large numbers in Afghanistan and northern Pakistan,  and the use of the language is generally limited to these regions. Dari, by  contrast, can be understood by anyone proficient in Persian-Farsi.  Although Pashto is the language of the largest ethnic group in Afghanistan,  Dari is the working language for the majority of Afghans.
section_title: Army and Marine Corps Developed Language and Culture Strategies, but Did Not Include Some Key Elements and Departmentwide Efforts to Establish a Planning Process Are Incomplete
paragraphs: Our prior work shows that establishing priorities and results-oriented  performance metrics can help federal agencies target training investments  and assess the contributions that training programs make toward  achieving strategic program goals and objectives. The Army and Marine  Corps have developed service-specific strategies with elements such as  broad goals and objectives for building language and culture capabilities,  but the strategies did not fully address other key elements, such as the  identification of training priorities and investments and results-oriented  performance metrics. We found that the Army and Marine Corps had not  conducted comprehensive analyses to prioritize language and culture  training investments and assign responsibilities for program performance  and departmentwide efforts to establish a planning process for language  and culture capabilities were not yet complete.
subsections: section_title: The Army and Marine Corps Developed Broad Goals and Objectives within Language and Culture Strategies and Identified Some Training Programs and Activities
paragraphs: The Army and Marine Corps developed broad service-specific goals and  objectives for language and culture training within their respective  language and culture strategies and identified some key training programs  and activities. In the strategy it issued in December 2009, the Army states  that the service’s goal is to develop a baseline of foreign language and  culture capabilities for all leaders and soldiers to support the  accomplishment of unit missions. The Army strategy establishes  language and culture subject areas and learning objectives for officers and  enlisted soldiers for various stages of a military career for both career  development and predeployment training.According to the Army  strategy, the learning objectives are intended to provide a vision of the  desired end state for soldiers at each career stage. For example, the  strategy identifies three components of cross-cultural competence, which  include culture fundamentals, culture self-awareness, and culture skills,  and a number of learning objectives for each subject area that are tied to  rank and level of responsibility. The Army’s strategy notes that its primary  focus is establishing the framework and content of training, and that  additional steps are needed to determine the methods that are the most  appropriate for delivering the education and training necessary to support  the Army’s requirements.
In the strategy it issued in January 2011, the Marine Corps established a  broad strategic goal to provide all marines in the general purpose forces  with a baseline in cross-cultural competence while simultaneously  enhancing regional proficiency and functional language/communication  skills throughout the force. The strategy outlines a number of language  and culture training areas that are designed to enhance marines’ ability to  communicate and interact with local populations on a basic level and  perform core missions in a culturally complex environment. For example,  to support its cross-cultural competence goal, the strategy discusses the  need for marines to be able to conduct a cultural analysis, incorporate  operational culture into planning, influence a foreign population, apply  operational culture, and interact with a foreign population. In addition, the  strategy identifies specific programs and the training activities that are  available to achieve the Marine Corps’ strategic goal. Additionally,  according to the strategy, the service’s operational culture training manual  identifies the specific learning outcomes and objectives across the entire  training and education continuum in the areas of cross-cultural  competence, regional proficiency, and communication skills.
section_title: The Army’s and Marine Corps’ Strategies Did Not Fully Identify Training Priorities and Required Investments or Results- Oriented Performance Metrics to Assess Language and Culture Training
paragraphs: The Army’s and Marine Corps’ respective strategies did not address some  key elements that could guide their training efforts and investments. Our  prior work has found that effective planning includes a clear identification  of training priorities and the investments required to implement and  sustain training programs and activities. These elements provide a  framework for decision makers to assess the extent to which annual  budget requests are coordinated with training priorities and strategic goals  and objectives. Additionally, our work has found that it is important for  agencies to incorporate performance metrics that can be used to assess  the contributions training programs make collectively toward achieving  strategic program goals and objectives. DOD noted in its fiscal year 2012  budget request that every level of the department is accountable for  measuring performance and delivering results that support  departmentwide strategic goals and objectives. With regard to training  programs, both the Army and Marine Corps have included requirements to  perform evaluations in their respective training-related guidance.
We found that the Army and Marine Corps did not always identify training  priorities with the proposed investments that are required for  implementing and sustaining the training within their respective language  and culture strategies. Within its strategy, the Army identifies a number of  career development and predeployment training objectives, for example  that all individuals have a basic understanding of the language used in  their potential area of deployment appropriate to their mission, but the  strategy does not identify training priorities to achieve these objectives.  Furthermore, the Army’s strategy does not identify the investments that  are needed to implement and sustain training programs and activities that  will build the Army’s desired language and culture capability. The Marine  Corps’ strategy identifies two language and culture training priorities for  its general purpose forces—the Regional, Culture, and Language  Familiarization and predeployment training programs and provides  information on training activities, such as language learning software and  language learning centers, that support these training programs. However,  the Marine Corps’ strategy did not identify the total investment required to  develop and sustain these training programs and activities.
In some instances, the Army and Marine Corps have identified language  and culture funding requirements, for example within their annual budget  requests, but this information is not linked with the services’ respective  language and culture strategies. Officials with Army and Marine Corps  headquarters and training commands told us that there is not a cohesive  picture of language and culture training investments and that multiple  commands and units have separately developed and funded language and  culture training programs. For example, the Marine Corps’ Center for  Advanced Operational Culture Learning has funded language and culture  training for all marines in the general purpose forces, while operational  units have also funded predeployment language training for these marines  to attend classes at a local community college and university. In addition,  other DOD organizations, such as the Defense Language Office, have  funded language and culture training for Army and Marine Corps general  purpose forces. For example, the Defense Language Office has funded  some language and culture predeployment training for Army and Marine  Corps general purpose forces and also the development of interactive  training tools to enhance the cultural proficiency skills of service  members. Because the Army and Marine Corps have not linked their  budget requests with their respective strategies and multiple DOD and  service organizations have funded language and culture training programs,  the department does not have full visibility over the potential total costs  associated with implementing the Army’s and Marine Corps’ respective  language and culture training strategies.
We also found that the Army and Marine Corps had not yet established a  systematic approach with results-oriented performance metrics to assess  the contributions that training programs have made collectively in  achieving their strategic goals and objectives. Within its strategy, the Army  notes that performance metrics are necessary to determine the  effectiveness of training programs, but the strategy does not establish any  specific metrics or other indicators to evaluate progress toward the  service’s strategic goals or an approach to assess them. Similarly, the  Marine Corps’ strategy does not discuss any metrics that the service will  utilize to assess language and culture training programs that are intended  to achieve the service’s strategic goals and objectives.
While the Army and Marine Corps had not established comprehensive  metrics within their strategies to assess progress towards achieving their  overall strategic goals and objectives, the services have established limited  metrics to inform the development of specific language and culture  training programs. For example, in July 2010, the Army set out a  requirement for at least one leader per platoon deploying to Afghanistan  and Iraq that will have regular contact with a local population to have  more advanced language training and set standards for the leader’s  language capability using DOD’s agreed upon method of measuring  proficiency. Army officials reported that, based on their testing, nearly  100 percent of soldiers who have completed the language training program  intended to support this requirement are meeting or exceeding the  performance metric. The Marine Corps published an operational culture  training manual in April 2009 with language and culture-related training  tasks and the Center for Advanced Operational Culture Learning has  developed training programs to assist Marine Corps units in accomplishing  the tasks called for in the manual. These training programs include  individual and unit-level performance metrics, such as student exams and  training evaluation scorecards. However, the Army and Marine Corps have  not yet established a comprehensive set of metrics for their respective  language and culture training programs. For example, the Army had not  established performance metrics for its culture training programs and the  Marine Corps had not established metrics for predeployment language  training.
We found that the Army and Marine Corps did not include these key  planning elements within their respective strategies because they did not  fully analyze their training efforts to identify a clear prioritization of  training investments and formalize responsibilities for ensuring the  accountability for program performance prior to the design and  implementation of their language and culture strategies and related  training programs. Both the Army and the Marine Corps note that their  respective language and culture strategies will be updated as needed. The  Army is taking steps to further define the investments it requires to  implement the service’s language and culture strategy and develop  performance metrics to determine language and culture proficiency gaps  that would inform the development of training and education programs.  Once these analyses are completed, the Army plans to revise its  servicewide strategy. An official from the Marine Corps’ Center for  Advanced Operational Culture Learning told us that the Marine Corps had  not formally assigned it or any other service organization with the  responsibility and accountability for language and culture program  performance. For example, the center is responsible for developing  training programs of instruction and other materials, but not for ensuring  that operational units complete the training programs in total or assessing  training programs in meeting strategic goals and objectives. The Marine  Corps plans to develop a concept of operations document that will  formalize stakeholder roles and responsibilities for implementing its  strategy and conduct additional analyses to identify language and culture  capability needs that are not currently being addressed by current training  programs. However, at the time of our review, these efforts were in the  planning stage and are not yet complete. Without a complete  understanding of the actions and investments that are necessary to  achieve their strategic goals and objectives, the Army and the Marine  Corps cannot provide DOD and the Congress with a reasonable assurance  that their approaches and funding requests are building a capability that  meets service and DOD long-term needs.
section_title: Departmentwide Efforts to Establish a Planning Process to Further Align Service Language and Culture Training Approaches Are Not Yet Complete
paragraphs: In June 2009, we reported that DOD did not have a comprehensive  strategic plan to transform language and culture capabilities with  measures to assess the effectiveness of its transformation efforts. At that  time, we recommended that DOD develop a strategic plan or set of linked  plans that contain measurable performance goals and objectives and  investment priorities that are linked to these goals to guide the military  services’ efforts to transform language and culture capabilities. In  February 2011, DOD published the Department of Defense Strategic Plan  for Language Skills, Regional Expertise, and Cultural Capabilities (2011- 2016). The strategy outlines a broad planning process that includes a  vision, goals, and objectives and notes that the department will review the  strategy annually and modify it when needed to ensure alignment with  overarching DOD guidance. While the strategy broadly describes a  strategic planning process, the department has not yet set up internal  mechanisms, such as procedures and milestones, which our prior work  has found can assist the department reach consensus with the military  departments and others on priorities, synchronize the development of  department- and servicewide plans with each other and the budget  process, and guide efforts to monitor progress and take corrective action.  DOD officials told us that a more detailed implementation plan will be  issued separately and the plan would likely include action plans that  define responsibilities and time frames for completing specific tasks, as  well as performance measures to assess progress and guide the allocation  of resources, but it is unclear if this plan will provide the department with  the clearly defined planning process needed to achieve it goals. During the  course of our review, officials with the Army and Marine Corps told us  that there has been a lack of strategic direction and coherent  departmentwide policy on language and culture capability needs, which  has limited the services’ ability to train service personnel in the general  purpose forces with the right mix of skills to meet combatant commander  requirements and develop service-specific strategies that align with  departmentwide goals.
In June 2009, we also reported that DOD did not have the information it  needs to identify gaps and make informed investment decisions about  language and culture capability needs, in part because DOD did not have a  standardized methodology to determine language and regional proficiency  requirements. We recommended that DOD develop a validated  methodology for identifying language and regional proficiency  requirements, which includes cultural awareness. Citing our June 2009  recommendation, DOD has taken steps to develop a new, standardized  methodology to define geographic combatant commander language and  culture capability requirements and plans to implement the methodology  by March 2012. However, since these requirements are still incomplete,  the Army’s and Marine Corps’ strategies do not yet address the specific  actions that the services will be required to take to address DOD-wide  language and culture capability requirements.
Without a clearly defined planning process that includes internal  mechanisms, such as procedures and milestones, and a validated set of  language and culture capability requirements, the department does not  have the tools it needs to set strategic direction for language and culture  training efforts, fully align departmentwide efforts to develop plans and  budget requests that reflect its priorities, and measure progress in  implementing various initiatives.
section_title: U.S. Central Command Did Not Synchronize Varying Language and Culture Training Requirements for Army and Marine Corps General Purpose Forces
paragraphs: DOD components identified language and culture training requirements  for Army and Marine Corps general purpose forces that will deploy to the  U.S. Central Command area of responsibility, but these requirements  varied among and within DOD components. Within recent planning  guidance, DOD describes the importance of establishing a robust training  requirements identification process and synchronizing training among  DOD components. However, we found that U.S. Central Command did not  clearly identify and approve predeployment language and culture training  requirements and synchronize them among and within DOD components,  because the command has not yet developed a comprehensive,  analytically based process for identifying and synchronizing training  requirements.
subsections: section_title: Language and Culture Training Requirements Intended to Guide Service Predeployment Training Programs for General Purpose Forces Varied in Documents Published by DOD Components
paragraphs: Given the dynamic security environment presented by current operations  in the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility, DOD components  have been required to rapidly respond to changing capability needs for  language and culture. This has resulted in multiple DOD components  promulgating language and culture predeployment training requirements  that are intended to prepare forces for operations in the U.S. Central  Command area of responsibility. Since 2008, the Office of the Secretary of  Defense, U.S. Central Command, U.S. Forces Afghanistan, and the Army  and the Marine Corps have utilized various means to articulate joint force  and service-specific language and culture predeployment training  requirements, including combatant commander orders, battlefield  commander guidance, departmentwide memorandums, and service-level  orders and administrative messages.
We surveyed 15 documents issued since June 2008 that address language  and culture predeployment training requirements. In table 1, we list the  documents we reviewed and include descriptions of language and culture  training requirements, which are not intended to be comprehensive  descriptions of the documents. Within these documents, we found several  examples of variances in language and culture training requirements  among and within DOD components. In particular, we identified examples  of language and culture predeployment training requirements that varied  even at similar points in time with respect to the specific language to be  trained—whether Dari, Pashto, or both languages, as well as variances in  the type and duration of training. For example, the language designated as  the focus of training varied amongst multiple pieces of guidance issued  since 2009. In November 2009, U.S. Forces Afghanistan issued guidance  recommending that all forces deploying to Afghanistan focus their  predeployment language training on Dari. In that same month, the Marine  Corps issued an administrative message directing that certain  commanders deploying to Afghanistan develop a basic language capability  in Pashto. From November 2009 to March 2011, the Office of the Secretary  of Defense, U.S. Central Command, U.S. Forces Afghanistan, and the Army  and the Marine Corps issued additional guidance addressing language  training, and the language focus has continued to vary among the different  pieces of guidance. For example, in October 2010, U.S. Forces Afghanistan  published an order that required all forces to complete training with a  focus on Dari, and included an option for commanders to specify training  with a focus on Pashto in certain cases. In November 2010, the Secretary  of Defense approved Afghanistan counterinsurgency training standards  that include a requirement that U.S. forces understand basic phrases in  both Dari and Pashto. Additionally, just as the focus of training has varied,  the type and duration of training has varied as well. For example, in July  2010, the Army required that all forces deploying to either Afghanistan or  Iraq complete a 4- to 6-hour online training program for language and  culture. In September 2010, the Marine Corps directed that all ground units  assigned to the I Marine Expeditionary Force preparing for Afghanistan  deployment complete a 2-day culture course and receive an introduction  to software used for self-paced study. During the course of our review,  Army and Marine Corps officials noted that language and culture  predeployment training requirements changed constantly, which led to  some confusion over the training that was needed to meet operational  needs and that considerable time and resources were spent adjusting  training programs.
section_title: U.S. Central Command Did Not Clearly Identify and Approve Predeployment Training Requirements and Synchronize Them among and within DOD Components
paragraphs: According to DOD guidance, the Commander of U.S. Central Command is  to coordinate and approve training necessary to carry out missions  assigned to the command. DOD’s 2010 strategic plan calls for the  establishment of a robust, relevant requirements process that includes  investing in front-end analysis and supporting requirements identification  activities and synchronizing service training programs with combatant  commander requirements. Moreover, in 2011 guidance, the Chairman of  the Joint Chiefs of Staff stated that DOD will convert requirements into  deployable capabilities more quickly and effectively, synchronizing force- providers with force-commander needs.
At the time of our review, we found that U.S. Central Command had not  yet developed a comprehensive, analytically based process for identifying  and synchronizing predeployment training requirements among DOD  components. In the absence of a comprehensive process, we identified  instances in which U.S. Central Command did not clearly identify and  approve training requirements and coordinate them with key stakeholders,  such as the military services and subordinate commands, to ensure that  requirements are synchronized among and within DOD components and  with departmentwide guidance. We also observed instances in which U.S.  Central Command did not obtain feedback to determine the extent to  which predeployment training approaches met battlefield commander  needs. For example:    U.S. Central Command did not formally approve U.S. Forces  Afghanistan’s January 2010 language training guidance requiring  language training. For example, the command did not conduct front- end analyses of feasibility or cost of the training requirements or  release a message validating U.S. Forces Afghanistan’s language  predeployment training requirements.
U.S. Central Command, as the combatant commander responsible for  coordinating training requirements for the geographic area of  responsibility, had not coordinated U.S. Forces Afghanistan’s October  2010 order mandating online language and culture training for all U.S.  forces and DOD civilians currently deployed and deploying to  Afghanistan with the Army and Marine Corps prior to its release. U.S.  Forces Afghanistan officials told us that coordination with the services  on the requirements would have provided better insight as to potential  issues associated with its implementation. During the course of our  review, U.S. Forces Afghanistan reissued the October 2010 order once  to clarify confusion over the training requirements and was considering  another revision to the order to further clarify its requirements.
U.S. Central Command had not synchronized language and culture  predeployment training requirements with departmentwide guidance.  For example, in December 2010, the Office of the Secretary of Defense  released a directive type memorandum on counterinsurgency training  and reporting guidance that requires the services to ensure that at least  one leader per platoon that will have regular contact with the  population will have a measurable language capability in the language  of the region to which they will be assigned. According to senior  officials within the Office of the Secretary of Defense, this guidance is  based on their understanding of U.S. Forces Afghanistan’s  requirements, a subordinate command of U.S. Central Command, and  is the authoritative department policy on training requirements for  ongoing operations and is considered mandatory training. However,  U.S. Central Command did not explicitly include the requirement  established by the Office of the Secretary of Defense within either of its  March 2011 orders on training requirements for standard and  nonstandard forces.
U.S. Central Command had not coordinated with the Army and Marine  Corps to obtain feedback on the services’ language and culture  predeployment training approaches in meeting operational needs prior  to issuing new training requirements. For example, until December  2010, neither U.S. Central Command nor U.S. Forces Afghanistan had  obtained feedback from the Marine Corps on language and culture  training approaches that were developed by the Marine Corps to  address service-specific requirements. We were told that informal  efforts exist among DOD components to receive feedback on service  training approaches, such as training forums and action officer-level  communication, but U.S. Forces Afghanistan training officials told us  that these informal processes had not provided them with full visibility  over the services’ training programs.
In its March 2011 order establishing theater predeployment training  requirements for standard forces, U.S. Central Command consolidated  predeployment training requirements that have been published in various  documents in a single source. Refinements to training requirements  occur over time due to changing operational conditions, and one aspect of  this new order calls for an annual review and validation of U.S. Central  Command’s consolidated training requirements followed by the  publication of an order announcing updates. In addition, the order assigns  responsibilities within U.S. Central Command for approving new  requirements, describes how organizations can request modifications to  existing requirements, and identifies how decisions on training  requirements will be communicated within the command through official  messages. While this appears to be a positive step in identifying  predeployment training requirements, including those for language and  culture, the order does not provide details on the analysis that is required  to support these decisions, a coordination process with key stakeholders,  such as the military services and subordinate commands, to ensure that  requirements are synchronized among and within DOD components and  with departmentwide guidance and to solicit feedback on service training  approaches in meeting operational needs. Without a comprehensive  process, U.S. Central Command will not have a mechanism to identify and  synchronize training for current and future operations, which may result in  deploying forces that receive training that is inconsistent and may not  meet operational needs.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: DOD continues to emphasize the importance of language and culture  training and, along with the military services, is investing millions of  dollars to provide it to general purpose forces. However, the Army and  Marine Corps have not established investment priorities, assigned  responsibilities for training program performance, or developed  comprehensive metrics to gauge progress in achieving their strategic goals  and objectives and therefore cannot provide DOD and the Congress with a  reasonable assurance that their approaches and funding requests are  building a capability that meets service and DOD long-term needs. Further,  without a clearly defined planning process, the department does not have  the tools it needs to set strategic direction for language and culture  training efforts, fully align departmentwide efforts to develop plans and  budget requests that reflect its priorities, and measure progress in  implementing various initiatives. Regarding predeployment language and  culture training, over the last several years multiple DOD components  have issued requirements for deploying forces, resulting in the Army and  Marine Corps expending considerable time and resources adjusting  service training programs. U.S. Central Command has taken some steps to  consolidate training requirements, but the command has not yet  established a comprehensive, analytically based process for identifying  and synchronizing predeployment training requirements. Without a  comprehensive process, U.S. Central Command will not have a mechanism  to identify and synchronize training for current and future operations,  which may result in deploying forces that receive training that is  inconsistent and may not meet operational needs.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: We recommend the Secretary of Defense take the following three actions.
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 one recommendation.  DOD’s comments are reprinted in their entirety in appendix II. DOD also  provided technical comments, which we incorporated into the report as  appropriate.
DOD partially concurred with our recommendation that the Secretary of  Defense direct the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of the Navy to  assign responsibilities for training program performance and include in  subsequent updates of the Army’s and Marine Corps’ respective language  and culture strategies training priorities and investments that are  necessary to achieve strategic goals and objectives and results-oriented  performance metrics to measure progress in achieving their strategic goals  and objectives. In its comments, DOD separately addressed the two  elements in our recommendation—training priorities and investments, and  results-oriented performance metrics. With regard to identifying training  priorities and investments, DOD stated that linking strategy development  with training and resource prioritization would better identify the  resources that are necessary to address goals, objectives, and programs  outlined in the language, regional, and culture strategy. DOD noted that  this would allow senior leaders to obtain a better understanding of the  time and resources necessary to implement the strategy and may prompt  modifications early in the process when viewed against time and fiscal  realities. DOD also stated, however, that the department develops strategy  and capabilities separately from the resource allocation process to capture  the required operational capability and determine the gaps, independent of  the fiscal environment. It noted that capability requirements are then  prioritized and compete for resources. DOD stated that before definitive  measures are implemented to more closely integrate requirements  development and resource allocation at a much earlier stage, it is  necessary to assess potential negative consequences and then weigh costs  versus benefits. Our report did not address the timing of the requirements  development and resource allocation processes, but rather emphasized the  importance of a clearly defined planning process that produces outcomes  that clearly link strategy development with training prioritization and  resource allocation. As noted in our report, the Army and Marine Corps  had not yet fully defined the language and culture capabilities needs of  their general purpose forces; prioritized the investments required to  implement their respective language and culture strategies; or clearly  linked their funding requests with their respective strategies. We therefore  continue to believe that as the Army and Marine Corps update their  strategies, the services should fully identify the language and culture  capabilities and the training priorities and needed investments in order to  provide DOD and the Congress with a reasonable assurance that their  approaches and funding requests are building a capability that meets  service and DOD long-term needs.
With regard to results-oriented performance metrics, DOD stated that  several efforts are being pursued to enhance and fully implement metrics  that accurately capture programmatic performance and utility, to include  initiatives to more closely link training and readiness standards with  operational readiness through the Defense Readiness Reporting System  and other reporting mechanisms. DOD noted that any effort to start  measuring and tracking individual performance with “hard” metrics such  as cultural proficiency should be thoroughly reviewed before  implementation and that such metrics may not provide an accurate  assessment tied to operational effectiveness. Lastly, DOD stated that the  actual administrative and logistical costs associated with the effort may far  outweigh any benefits that are potentially gained. We agree that it is  important for the Army and Marine Corps to establish metrics that  accurately capture programmatic performance and utility in a manner that  provides an accurate assessment of operational effectiveness. As stated in  our report, the Army and Marine Corps have established limited metrics  focused on individual and unit-level assessments, but had not established  comprehensive metrics that would enable them to assess the contributions  that training programs are making collectively toward achieving their  overall strategic goals and objectives. We also noted that the Army and  Marine Corps are planning to make additional investments to build the  language and culture capabilities of their general purpose forces. We  recognize that there is a cost associated with the time and effort required  to establish metrics and implement efforts to measure progress against  any metrics. However, developing comprehensive metrics is a key element  needed to provide DOD and the Congress with the assurance that the  services’ training approaches and funding requests are building a  capability that meets service and DOD long-term needs. Therefore, we  continue to believe the development of such metrics would better inform  the services’ investment decisions and enhance their ability to maximize  available resources.
DOD concurred with our recommendation that the Secretary of Defense  direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to  issue guidance to establish within the implementation plan for the  Department of Defense Strategic Plan of Language Skills, Regional  Expertise, and Cultural Capabilities (2011-2016) a clearly defined planning  process with mechanisms, such as procedures and milestones, by which it  can reach consensus with the military departments, coordinate and review  approval of updates to plans, synchronize the development of plans with  the budget process, monitor the implementation of initiatives, and report  progress, on a periodic basis, towards achieving established goals. DOD  stated that the DOD Implementation Plan for Language Skills, Regional  Expertise, and Cultural Capabilities for FY 2011-2016 will include a clearly  defined planning process for working with the military departments to  coordinate plans, synchronize plans with resources, and evaluate and  report performance as the department works toward its strategic goals.  DOD stated that it planned to complete the implementation plan by June  2011.
DOD concurred with our recommendation that the Secretary of Defense  direct the Commander of U.S. Central Command to establish a  comprehensive, analytically based process to (1) identify and approve  predeployment training requirements that includes a description of the  analysis to be conducted prior to approving the requirements and (2)  coordinate with key stakeholders, such as the military services and  subordinate commands to ensure that requirements are synchronized  among and within DOD components and with departmentwide guidance,  and solicit feedback on service training approaches in meeting operational  needs. In its comments, DOD separately addressed our recommendation  on conducting analysis as part of the requirements identification process  and coordinating with key stakeholders to ensure that requirements are  synchronized. DOD stated that U.S. Central Command agreed that such a  process was necessary at the time of our review and noted that U.S.  Central Command has established and instituted a process to coordinate  and synchronize requirements among the service components and  subordinate commands, to include cross directorate coordination within  U.S. Central Command headquarters, to ensure all training requirements  are meeting operational needs. Specifically, DOD stated that U.S. Central  Command utilized this process in the development of U.S. Central  Command Fragmentary Order 09-1700, USCENTCOM Theater Training  Requirements, dated March 28, 2011. DOD also stated that U.S. Central  Command assessed it is a service responsibility to determine the training  approach they utilize to meet training requirements for the U.S. Central  Command’s area of responsibility. As stated in our report, we recognize  that DOD has taken positive steps in developing the fragmentary order, but  continue to believe that additional actions are needed to ensure that U.S.  Central Command has a comprehensive, analytically based process to  coordinate and synchronize predeployment training requirements. For  example, in its current form, U.S. Central Command Fragmentary Order  09-1700 order does not provide details on the analysis that is required to  support decisions on the identification of training requirements, despite  the fact that DOD’s September 2010 Strategic Plan for the Next Generation  of Training for the Department of Defense calls for the establishment of a  robust, relevant requirements process that includes investing in front-end  analysis and supporting requirements identification activities. Moreover, in  developing its March 2011 order, U.S. Central Command did not fully  synchronize language and culture predeployment training requirements  with departmentwide guidance. Specifically, U.S. Central Command did  not explicitly include the language training requirement established by the  Office of the Secretary of Defense in December 2010 counterinsurgency  training and reporting guidance that requires the services to ensure that at  least one leader per platoon that will have regular contact with the  population will have a measurable language capability in the language of  the region to which they will be assigned. We therefore continue to believe  that additional actions are necessary for U.S. Central Command to  establish a comprehensive, analytically based process to identify training  requirements and coordinate with key stakeholders to ensure that  requirements are synchronized among and within DOD components and  with departmentwide guidance.
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, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, and the  Commander of U.S. Central Command. 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 Joint Staff; U.S. Central Command; U.S. Forces  Afghanistan; U.S. Joint Forces Command; and the Army and the Marine  Corps. To evaluate the extent to which the Army and Marine Corps had  developed language and culture strategies with key elements, such as  goals, funding priorities, and metrics to guide training approaches and  investments that were aligned with departmentwide planning efforts, we  focused on the Army’s and Marine Corps’ general purpose forces.  Therefore, excluded from this review were training programs for language  and regional experts, such as foreign area officers, intelligence specialists,  special operations forces, and other service efforts to provide culture  experts to deployed forces, such as “human terrain teams.” We examined  the Army Culture and Foreign Language Strategy and the Marine Corps  Language, Regional and Culture Strategy: 2011-2015 and training  documents to determine training priorities and metrics that have been  used to measure progress in meeting service and departmentwide  capability needs. We reviewed these documents in the context of our  prior work, Department of Defense (DOD) budget documents, and service  guidance to determine the extent to which the Army and Marine Corps  were developing strategies that identified goals and objectives, training  programs and priorities, resource requirements, and approaches for  measuring progress, including results-oriented performance metrics.We  also reviewed funding data for fiscal years 2009 through 2012 provided by  the Army’s Training and Doctrine Command and the Marine Corps’ Center  for the Advanced Operational Culture Learning that are associated with  the implementation of the Army’s and Marine Corps’ respective language  and culture strategies. To corroborate our understanding of the  documents provided, we conducted interviews with officials responsible  for developing the Army’s and Marine Corps’ language and culture  strategies and related training programs, as well as Office of the Secretary  of Defense officials that are responsible for providing strategic direction  and programmatic oversight of the department’s language and culture  programs. We also discussed the content and status of ongoing  departmental efforts that are intended to further align Army and Marine  Corps language and culture training approaches with officials representing  the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Staff. These efforts  include the implementation of a new, departmentwide methodology for  determining geographic combatant commander language and regional  proficiency requirements, which includes culture, and the development of  DOD’s strategic plan for language skills and cultural capabilities.
To evaluate DOD’s approach for identifying language and culture  predeployment training requirements for Army and Marine Corps general  purpose forces that will deploy to the U.S. Central Command area of  responsibility, we reviewed relevant provisions of Title 10 of the U.S.  Code and related DOD guidance that characterize the training roles and  responsibilities of combatant commanders and the military services. We  examined Office of the Secretary of Defense, U.S. Central Command, U.S.  Forces Afghanistan, and Army and Marine Corps documents published  from 2008 to 2011 and identified specific language and culture training  requirements. To corroborate our understanding of the documents  provided, we conducted interviews with officials representing the Office  of the Secretary of Defense, U.S. Central Command, U.S. Forces  Afghanistan, and Army and Marine Corps force provider and training  commands to discuss the processes they use to identify language and  culture training requirements for ongoing operations in the U.S. Central  Command area of responsibility, including any analyses that were  conducted to identify the feasibility of implementing the training and  associated costs. We also discussed the processes used by DOD  components to synchronize battlefield commander operational needs with  training conducted by the services to prepare forces to conduct military  operations. We analyzed these processes to determine the level of  coordination among DOD components with respect to joint and service- specific predeployment training requirements for language and culture. We  assessed these efforts in light of DOD guidance that describes the  importance of establishing a robust training requirements identification  process and synchronizing service training programs with combatant  commander requirements.
We conducted this performance audit from June 2010 to May 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 APRIL 8, 2011  GAO-11-456 (GAO CODE 351586)  “MILITARY TRAINING:  ACTIONS NEEDED TO IMPROVE PLANNING   AND COORDINATION OF ARMY AND MARINE CORPS   LANGUAGE AND CULTURE TRAINING”
RECOMMENDATION 1:  The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense direct the  Secretary of Army and the Commandant of the Marine Corps to assign responsibilities for  training program performance and include in subsequent updates of their respective service- specific language and culture strategies training priorities and investments that are necessary to  achieve strategic goals and objectives.
DoD RESPONSE:  Partially concur.  Linking strategy development with training and resource  prioritization across the enterprise would better identify, up front, what resources are necessary  to address goals, objectives, and programs outlined in the language, regional, and culture  strategy.  This would allow senior leadership to obtain a better understanding of the rough order  of magnitude in time and resources necessary to implement the strategy being presented, and  may prompt modifications early in the process when viewed against time and fiscal realities.   Currently, strategy and capability requirements within the Department and Services are  developed separately from the resource allocation/Program Objective Memorandum process.   The purpose is to accurately capture the required operational capability and determine the gaps,  independent of the fiscal environment.  From there, those capability requirements are then  prioritized and compete for resources.  This approach has some advantages that could be negated  if the two processes were more closely linked early on.  Consequently, before definitive  measures are implemented to more closely integrate requirements development and resource  allocation at a much earlier stage, assessing potential negative consequences and then weighing  costs versus benefits will need to be conducted.
RECOMMENDATION 2:  The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense direct the  Secretary of Army and the Commandant of the Marine Corps to assign responsibilities for  training program performance and include in subsequent updates of their respective service- specific language and culture strategies results-oriented performance metrics to measure progress  in achieving their strategic goals and objectives.
DoD Response:  Partially concur.  Enhancing and fully implementing metrics that accurately  capture programmatic performance and utility remains a consistent focus for the Army and  Marine Corps.  Several efforts are being pursued to achieve this objective, to include current  initiatives to more closely link training and readiness standards outlined in training and readiness  manuals with operational readiness through the Defense Readiness Reporting System and other  reporting mechanisms.  However, any effort to start measuring and tracking individual  performance with “hard” metrics such as cultural proficiency scale/rating should be thoroughly  studied and reviewed before implementation.  There is significant data to suggest this is far from  an exact science, and may not be able to provide an accurate assessment tied to operational  effectiveness.  Furthermore, even if it is achievable, the actual administrative and logistical costs  associated with the effort may far outweigh any benefits that are potentially gained.
RECOMMENDATION 3:  The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense direct the  Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to issue guidance to establish within the  implementation plan for the Department of Defense Strategic Plan of Language Skills, Regional  Expertise, and Cultural Capabilities (2011-2016) a clearly defined planning process with  mechanisms, such as procedures and milestones, by which it can reach consensus with the  military departments, coordinate and review approval of updates to plans, synchronize the  development of plans with the budget process, monitor the implementation of initiatives, and  report progress, on a periodic basis, towards achieving established goals.
DoD Response:  Concur.  The DoD Implementation Plan for Language Skills, Regional  Expertise, and Cultural Capabilities for FY 2011-2016 will include a clearly defined planning  process for working with the Military Departments to coordinate plans, synchronize plans with  resources, and evaluate and report performance as the Department works toward its strategic  goals.  The target date for its completion is June 2011.
RECOMMENDATION 4:  The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense direct the  Commander of the U.S. Central Command to establish a comprehensive, analytically-based  process to identify and approve predeployment training requirements and include in this  documentation a description of the analysis to be conducted prior to approving the requirements.
DoD Response:  Concur.  US Central Command (USCENTCOM) concurs that an analytically- based process by which to identify and approve predeployment training requirements was  necessary at the time of this study.  USCENTCOM Commander approved USCENTCOM  FRAGO 09-1700, USCENTCOM Theater Training Requirements, dated March 28, 2011, which  establishes the process for Service Components and Sub-Unified Commands to nominate  training requirements for approval, modification, or deletion for approval by the Director of  Operations, USCENTCOM.  This document will be reviewed annually to ensure requirements  are updated and promulgated to USCENTCOM Service Components, Sub-Unified Commands,  Service Force Providers, and the Joint Staff.
RECOMMENDATION 5:  The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense direct the  Commander of the U.S. Central Command to establish a comprehensive, analytically-based  process to coordinate with key stakeholders, such as the military services and subordinate  commands to ensure that requirements are synchronized among and within DOD components  and with department wide guidance, and solicit feedback on service training approaches in  meeting operational needs.
DoD Response:  Concur.  USCENTCOM concurs that a process to ensure that requirements are  synchronized among the Service Components and Subordinate commands was necessary at the  time of this study.  USCENTCOM has established and instituted a process that synchronizes  requirements among the Service Components and Subordinate Commands.  USCENTCOM  coordinates with all Service Components and Sub-Unified Commands, to include cross- directorate coordination within Headquarters USCENTCOM, to ensure all training requirements  are meeting operational needs.  USCENTCOM utilized this process in the development of  USCENTCOM FRAGO 09-1700, USCENTCOM Theater Training Requirements.   USCENTCOM assesses it is a Service responsibility to determine the training approach they  utilize to meet the training requirements for the USCENTCOM area of responsibility.
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;  Matthew Ullengren; and Chris Watson made significant contributions to  this report.