Defense Infrastructure: Most Recruit Training Barracks Have Significant Deficiencies
Published: 2002-06-13T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The Department of Defense reports that is has been faced with difficulties adequately maintaining its facilities to meet mission requirements. Facilities have been aging and deteriorating as funds needed to sustain and recapitalize the facilities have fallen short of requirements. GAO's review of the services' condition assessments in conjunction with visits to the basic training locations showed that most barracks were in need of significant repair, although some barracks were in better condition than others.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: GAO found that the exteriors of each service's barracks were generally in good condition and presented an acceptable appearance, but the barracks' infrastructure often had persistent repair problems because of inadequate maintenance. The services' approaches to recapitalize their recruit barracks vary and are influenced by their overall priorities to improve all facilities. Although the Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps are addressing many of their recapitalization needs in the near-term, most of the Army's plans are longer term.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Over the last decade the Department of Defense (DOD) reports that it has  been faced with the major challenge of adequately maintaining its facilities  to meet its mission requirements.  Over time, facilities have been aging and  deteriorating as funds needed to sustain and recapitalize the facilities have  fallen short of reported requirements.  In response to a requirement in the  conference report accompanying the Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal  Year 2002, we reviewed the physical condition of barracks used to house  military recruits attending basic training during their first 6 to 12 weeks of  military service.  Our overall objectives were to determine (1) the physical  condition of the services’ training barracks for recruits and (2) whether the  services have plans to recapitalize these facilities.  In performing our work,  we visited all ten locations where the military services conduct basic  training—five in the Army, three in the Marine Corps, and one each in the  Navy and the Air Force (see app. I).
This is one of several reviews we currently have underway examining  various aspects of facility conditions in DOD.  We are also reviewing the  physical condition and recapitalization plans for all active force facilities in  DOD’s inventory.  And, we recently initiated a similar review for the reserve  components’ facilities.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Basic training is the initial training provided to military recruits upon  entering service into one of the military services.  While the program and  length of instruction varies somewhat among the services, the intent of the  training is to transform male and female recruits from civilians into military  service members.  Basic training typically consists of physical conditioning;  learning the military service’s core values, history and tradition; weapons  qualification; instilling discipline; and nuclear, biological, and chemical  protection training along with other training needed for initial entry into  the services.  The training varies in length—typically 6.4 weeks in the Air  Force, 9 weeks in the Army and Navy, and 12 weeks in the Marine Corps.   Following completion of basic training, recruits attend advanced individual  training to further enhance skills in particular areas of interest (military  occupational specialties).
Upon arriving at a basic training location, recruits are processed and are  generally housed for several days in reception barracks pending their  assignment to a training unit and their primary barracks for the duration of  the basic training period.  For the most part, the housing accommodations  within existing barracks are typically the same, regardless of male or  female occupancy.  DOD standards dictate space requirements of 72 square  feet of living space per recruit, but the actual space provided is often less  than that for the services, particularly during the summer months when a  surge of incoming recruits usually occurs.  In the Navy and Air Force, male  and female recruits are housed on different floors in the buildings.  In the  Army, Fort Jackson and Fort Leonard Wood are the only locations where  both male and female recruits undergo basic training, and they are housed  separately in the same buildings, sometimes on the same floor.  In the  Marine Corps, all female recruits receive basic training at Parris Island, and  they are housed in separate barracks.
While the barracks across the services differ in design, capacity, and age, it  is common for the barracks to have 2 or 3 floors with central bathing areas  and several “open bays” housing from 50 to 88 recruits each in bunk beds.   Some of the barracks, such as the Army’s “starships” and the Air Force  barracks, are large facilities that house over 1,000 recruits.  Others,  especially those constructed in the 1950s and early 1960s, are smaller with  recruit capacities of about 240 or less.  Table 1 provides an overall  summary of the number and age of the military services’ recruit barracks,  along with the number of recruits trained in fiscal year 2001.  As shown in  the table, the Army has the largest number of barracks—over 60 percent of  the total across the services—and trains nearly one-half of the recruits  entering the military.
The Army also uses temporary barracks, referred to as “relocatables,” to  accommodate recruits at locations where capacity is an issue.  Figure 1  depicts an exterior view of recruit barracks at Lackland Air Force Base,  Texas, an “open bay” living space at the Marine Corps Recruit Depot at  Parris Island, South Carolina, and an Army temporary (relocatable)  barracks at Fort Sill, Oklahoma.
Until recently, DOD had no readiness reporting system in place for its  defense installations and facilities.  In fiscal year 2000, DOD reported to the  Congress for the first time on installation readiness as an integral element  of its overall Defense Readiness Reporting System.  At the core of the  system is a rating classification, typically referred to as a “C” rating.  The C- rating process is intended to provide an overall assessment that considers  condition and capacity for each of nine facility classes (e.g., “operations  and training,” and “community and housing”) on a military installation.   Recruit training barracks fall within the community-and-housing facility  class.  The definitions for the C-ratings are as follows:  C-1—only minor facility deficiencies with negligible impact on  capability to perform missions;  C-2—some deficiencies with limited impact on capability to perform   C-3—significant facility deficiencies that prevent performing some   C-4—major facility deficiencies that preclude satisfactory mission  accomplishment.
Each service has the latitude to develop its own processes in establishing  C-ratings for its facilities.  The services’ systems for assessing the condition  of facilities are: the Army’s Installation Status Report; the Air Force’s  Installations’ Readiness Report; the Navy’s Installation Readiness  Reporting System; and the Marine Corps’ Commanding Officer’s Readiness  Reporting System.  These systems generally provide aggregate assessments  of the physical condition of facilities based on periodic facility inspections.   The Department subsequently aggregates the services’ reports and submits  an overall assessment for each facility class to the Congress in the  Department’s Quarterly Readiness Report.
section_title: Most Recruit Training Barracks Have Significant or Major Deficiencies
paragraphs: The majority of the services’ basic training installations had given their  recruit barracks a C-3 rating, indicating they have significant deficiencies.   Despite the acceptable outward appearance and generally good condition  of most barracks’ exteriors, our visits to the training locations confirmed  that most barracks had significant (C-3) or major (C-4) deficiencies  requiring repair or facility replacement.  Our site visits confirmed the  existence of significant deficiencies, but we also noted some apparent  inconsistencies in service ratings of their facilities’ condition.  Conditions  varied by location.  Among barracks in poor conditions, we observed a  number of typical heating and air conditioning, ventilation, and plumbing- related deficiencies that formed the basis of the services’ ratings for their  barracks.  Base officials told us that, although these deficiencies had an  adverse impact on the quality of life for recruits and were a burden on  trainers, they were able to accomplish their overall training mission.  At the  same time, we noted recent improvements had been made to some recruit  barracks at various locations.
subsections: section_title: Condition of Barracks Varies by Location
paragraphs: We observed that, overall, the services’ recruit training barracks had  significant or major deficiencies, but that conditions of individual barracks  vary by location. In general, we observed that the Army’s, Navy’s, and  Marine Corps’ Parris Island barracks were in the worst physical condition.   Table 2 shows the services’ overall rating assessments for the recruit  barracks by specific location and the typical deficiencies in those barracks  that form the basis of the ratings.
With the exception of Parris Island, all locations reported either C-3 or C-4  ratings for their barracks.  These ratings are relatively consistent with the  ratings of other facilities within the DOD inventory.  Recent defense data  show that nearly 70 percent of all DOD facilities are rated C-3 or C-4.   Further, as shown in appendix 2, the C-ratings for recruit training barracks  are not materially different from the ratings of other facilities at the training  locations we visited.
The C-ratings depicted in table 2 show the overall condition of the recruit  barracks at a specific location, but the condition of any one building within  a service and at a specific location could differ from the overall rating.  The  Army, with the greatest number of barracks, had the most problems.  For  the most part, the Army’s barracks were in overall poor condition across its  training locations, but some, such as a recently renovated barracks at Fort  Jackson and a newly constructed reception barracks at Fort Leonard  Wood, were in better condition.  Similarly, the Navy barracks, with the  exception of a newly constructed reception barracks in 2001, were in a  similar degraded condition because the Navy, having decided to replace all  of its barracks, had limited its maintenance expenditures on these facilities  in recent years. Of the Marine Corps locations, Parris Island had many  barracks in poor condition, the exception being a recently constructed  female barracks.  The barracks at San Diego and Camp Pendleton were  generally in much better shape.  The Air Force’s barracks, particularly five  of eight barracks that had recently been renovated, were in generally better  condition than the barracks at most locations we visited.
Our visits to the basic training locations confirmed that most of the  barracks had significant or major deficiencies, but we found some apparent  inconsistencies in the application of C-ratings to describe the condition of  the barracks.  For example, as a group, the barracks at the Marine Corps  Recruit Depot, Parris Island, were the highest rated—C2—among all the  services’ training barracks.  The various conditions we observed, however,  suggested that they were among the barracks with the worst physical  condition we had seen.  Marine Corps officials acknowledged that,  although they had completed a recent inspection of the barracks and had  identified significant deficiencies, the updated data had not yet been  entered into the ratings database.  As a result, the rating was based on  outdated data.  On the other hand, the barracks at the Marine Corps Recruit  Depot, San Diego, were rated C-3, primarily due to noise from the San  Diego airport that is next to the depot.  Otherwise, our observations  indicated that these barracks appeared to be in much better physical  condition than those at Parris Island because they were renovating the San  Diego barracks.  After we completed our work, the Marine Corps revised its  Parris Island and San Diego barracks’ ratings to C-4 and C-2, respectively, in  its fiscal year 2002 report.  The Air Force barracks were rated C-3, but we  observed them to be among those barracks in better physical condition and  in significantly better condition than the Army barracks that were rated C- 3.  And the Navy’s C-4 rating for its barracks was borne out by our visits.   Similar to the Marine Corps Parris Island and the Army barracks, we found  in general that the Navy barracks were in the worst physical condition.
In our discussions with service officials, we learned that the services use  different methodologies to arrive at their C-ratings.  For example, except  the Army, the services use engineers to periodically inspect facility  condition and identify needed repair projects.  The Army uses building  occupants to perform its inspections using a standard inspection form.   Further, except the Army, the services consider the magnitude of needed  repair costs for the barracks at the training locations in determining the  facilities’ C-ratings.  While these methodological differences may produce  inconsistencies in C-ratings across the services, we did not specifically  review the impact the differences may have on the ratings in this  assignment.  Instead, we are continuing to examine consistency issues  regarding service-wide facility-condition ratings as part of our broader  ongoing work on the physical condition and maintenance of all DOD  facilities.
section_title: Most Barracks Have Several Typical Deficiencies
paragraphs: Our visits to all 10 locations where the military services conduct basic  training confirm that most barracks have many of the same types of  deficiencies that are shown in table 2.  The most prevalent problems  included a lack of or inadequate heating and air conditioning, inadequate  ventilation (particularly in bathing areas), and plumbing-related  deficiencies.
Inadequate heating or air conditioning in recruit barracks was a common  problem at most locations.  The Navy’s barracks at Great Lakes, for  example, had no air conditioning, and base officials told us that it becomes  very uncomfortable at times, especially in the summer months when the  barracks are filled with recruits who have just returned from training  exercises.  During our visit, the temperature inside several of the barracks  we toured ran above 90 degrees with little or no air circulation.  Base  officials also told us that the excessive heat created an uncomfortable  sleeping situation for the recruits.  At the Marine Corps Recruit Depot at  Parris Island, several barracks that had been previously retrofitted to  include air conditioning had continual cooling problems because of  improperly sized equipment and ductwork.  Further, we were told by base  officials that a high incidence of respiratory problems affected recruits  housed in these barracks (as well as in some barracks at other locations),  and the officials suspected mold spores and other contaminants arising  from the filtration system and ductwork as a primary cause.  At the time of  our visit, the Marine Corps was investigating the health implications arising  from the air-conditioning system.  And, during our tour of a barracks at Fort  Sill, Army personnel told us that the air conditioning had been inoperable  in one wing of the building for about 2 years.
Inadequate ventilation in recruit barracks, especially in central bathing  areas that were often subject to overcrowding and heavy use, was another  common problem across the services.  Many of the central baths in the  barracks either had no exhaust fans or had undersized units that were  inadequate to expel moisture arising from shower use.  As a result, mildew  formation and damage to the bath ceilings, as shown in figure 2, were  common.  In barracks that had undergone renovation, however, additional  ventilation had been installed to alleviate the problems.
Plumbing deficiencies were also a common problem in the barracks across  the services.  Base officials told us that plumbing problems—including  broken and clogged toilets and urinals, inoperable showers, pipe leaks, and  slow or clogged drainpipes and sinks—were recurring problems that often  awaited repairs due to maintenance-funding shortages.  As shown in  figures 3 and 4, we observed leaking drainpipes and broken or clogged bath  fixtures in many of the barracks we visited.  In regard to the broken  fixtures, training officials told us that the problems had exacerbated an  undesirable situation that already existed in the barracks—a shortage of  fixtures and showers to adequately accommodate the demands of recruit  training.  These officials told us that because of the inadequate bath  facilities for the high number of recruits, they often had to perform  “workarounds”—such as establishing time limits for recruits taking  showers—in order to minimize, but not eliminate, adverse effects on  training time.
Base officials at most of the locations we visited attributed the deteriorated  condition of the recruit barracks to recurring inadequate maintenance,  which they ascribed to funding shortages that had occurred over the last 10  years.  Without adequate maintenance, facilities tend to deteriorate more  rapidly.  In many cases that officials cited, they were focusing on  emergency repairs and not performing routine preventative maintenance.   Our analysis of cost data generated by DOD’s facility sustainment model  showed, for example, that Fort Knox required about $38 million in fiscal  year 2002 to sustain its base facilities.  However, base officials told us they  received about $10 million, or 26 percent, of the required funding.  Officials  at other Army basic training sites also told us that they receive less funding,  typically 30 to 40 percent, than what they considered was required to  sustain their facilities.  Army officials told us that, over time, the  maintenance funding shortfalls at their training bases have been caused  primarily by the migration of funding from maintenance accounts to  support other priorities, such as the training mission.
section_title: Some Improvements Have Been Made
paragraphs: While most barracks across the services had significant deficiencies, others  were in better condition, primarily because they had recently been  constructed or renovated.  Those barracks that we observed to be in better  condition were scattered throughout the Army, Air Force, and Marine  Corps locations.  Even at those locations where some barracks were in  very poor condition, we occasionally observed other barracks in much  better condition.  For example, at Parris Island, the Marine Corps recently  completed construction of a new female recruit barracks.  At Fort Jackson,  the Army repaired windows, plumbing, and roofs in several “starship”  barracks and similar repairs were underway in two other starships.   Figures 5 and 6 show renovated bath areas at Lackland Air Force Base in  Texas and the Marine Corps Recruit Depot at San Diego.
section_title: Military Services Have Different Approaches for Barracks’ Recapitalization
paragraphs: The services’ approaches to recapitalize their recruit barracks vary and are  influenced by their overall priorities to improve all facilities.  The Marine  Corps and Air Force are focusing primarily on renovating existing facilities  while the Navy plans to construct all new recruit barracks.  The Army also  expects to renovate and construct recruit barracks, but the majority of the  funding needed to support these efforts is not expected to be programmed  and available until after 2008 because of the priority placed on improving  bachelor enlisted quarters.  Table 3 summarizes the services’  recapitalization plans.
The Navy has placed a high priority on replacing its 16 recruit barracks by  fiscal year 2009 at an estimated cost of $570 million using military  construction funds.  The Navy recently completed a new recruit reception  barracks, and the Congress has approved funding for four additional  barracks.  Two barracks are under construction with occupancy expected  later this year (see fig. 7), and the contract for 2 more barracks was  awarded in May 2002.  The Navy has requested funds for another 2 barracks  in its fiscal year 2003 military construction budget submission and plans to  request funds for the remaining 9 barracks in fiscal years 2004 through  2007.  The Navy expects construction on the last barracks to be completed  by 2009.  Navy officials told us that other high-priority Navy-wide efforts  (e.g., providing quality bachelor enlisted quarters and housing for sailors  while ships are in homeport) could affect the Navy’s recapitalization efforts  for recruit barracks.
The Army projects an estimated $1.7 billion will be needed to renovate or  replace much of its recruit training barracks, but most of the work is long- term over the next 20 years, primarily because renovating and replacing  bachelor enlisted quarters has been a higher priority in the near-term.   Through fiscal year 2003, the Army expects to spend about $154 million for  2 new barracks—1 each at Fort Jackson and Fort Leonard Wood.  Army  officials stated that barracks at these locations were given priority over  other locations because of capacity shortfalls at these installations. After  fiscal year 2003, the Army estimates spending nearly $1.6 billion in military  construction funds to recapitalize other recruit barracks—about $359  million to renovate existing barracks at several locations and about $1.2  billion to build new barracks at all locations, except Fort Sill.  Only Forts  Jackson and Leonard Wood are expected to receive funding for new  barracks through fiscal year 2007.  Further, the Army does not expect to  begin much additional work until after 2008, when it expects to complete  the renovation or replacement of bachelor enlisted quarters.  As a result,  Army officials stated that the remaining required funding for recruit  barracks would most likely be requested between 2009 and 2025.
The Marine Corps has a more limited recruit barracks recapitalization  program, primarily because it has placed a high priority on renovating or  replacing bachelor enlisted quarters in the near-term.  The three recruit  training installations plan to renovate their existing recruit barracks and  construct two additional barracks at Parris Island and San Diego.  The  Marine Corps expects to spend about $40 million in operation and  maintenance funds to renovate existing barracks at its training locations by  fiscal year 2004.  The renovations include replacing the bath and shower  facilities, replacing hot water and heating and air conditioning systems, and  upgrading the electrical systems.  The Marine Corps also expects to spend  at least $16 million in military construction for the new barracks by fiscal  year 2009.
The Air Force has placed a high priority on renovating, rather than  replacing its recruit barracks in the near-term.  It expects to spend about  $89 million—primarily operation and maintenance funds— to renovate its  existing barracks and convert another facility for use as a recruit barracks.   As of April 2002, the Air Force had renovated 5 of its existing 8 barracks  and expected to complete the remaining renovations by 2006. The  renovations include upgrading heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning  systems as well as installing new windows and improving the central baths.   Due to expected increases in the number of recruits, the Air Force has also  identified an additional building to be renovated for use as a recruit  barracks.  The Air Force intends to complete this renovation in fiscal year  2003.  Officials at Lackland Air Force Base stated they are currently  drafting a new base master plan, which identifies the need to build new  recruit barracks starting around 2012.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Secretary of  Defense.  An official from the Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of  Defense (Installations & Environment) orally concurred with the  information in our report and provided technical comments that we  incorporated as appropriate.
section_title: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: We performed our work at the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the  headquarters of each military service.  We also visited each military  installation that conducts recruit basic training—Fort Jackson, South  Carolina; Fort Benning, Georgia; Fort Knox, Kentucky; Fort Leonard Wood,  Missouri; Fort Sill Oklahoma; Great Lakes Naval Training Center, Illinois;  Lackland Air Force Base, Texas; Marine Corps Recruit Deport, Parris  Island, South Carolina; Marine Corps Recruit Depot, San Diego, California;  and Camp Pendleton, California. In discussing recruit barracks, we  included barracks used to house recruits attending the Army’s One Station  Unit Training.  This training, which is conducted at select basic training  locations for recruits interested in specific military occupational  specialties, combines basic training with advanced individual training into  one continuous course.
To assess the physical condition of recruit barracks, we reviewed the fiscal  year 2000 and 2001 installation readiness reports and supporting  documentation for the ten installations that conduct basic training.  We  also toured several barracks at each installation and photographed  conditions of the barracks.  Finally, we interviewed officials at the services’  headquarters and each installation regarding the process used to inspect  facilities, collect information to support the condition rating, and the  underlying reasons for the current condition of the facilities.
To determine the services’ plans to sustain and recapitalize recruit  barracks, we reviewed the services’ plans for renovating its existing  barracks and constructing new barracks.  In addition, we interviewed  officials in the headquarters of each service responsible for managing  installations and programming operation and maintenance and military  construction funds.
We conducted our work from March through May 2002 in accordance with  generally accepted government auditing standards.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretaries of Defense, the  Army, the Navy, and the Air Force; the Commandant of the Marine Corps;  and the Director, Office and Management and Budget.  In addition, the  report will available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at www.gao.gov and to  others upon request.
Please contact me on (202) 512-8412 if you or your staff have any questions  regarding this report.  Key contributors to this report were Michael  Kennedy, James Reifsnyder, Richard Meeks, Laura Talbott, and R.K. Wild.
section_title: Recruit Basic Training Locations
paragraphs: The military services conduct recruit basic training at ten installations in  the United States.  The Army has the most locations—five, with Fort  Jackson, South Carolina, training the most Army recruits.  The Marine  Corps conducts its training at two primary locations—Parris Island, South  Carolina on the east coast and San Diego in the west.  Further, about 4  weeks (consisting of weapons qualification and field training exercises) of  the Marine Corps’ 12-week basic training course at San Diego is conducted  at Camp Pendleton because of training space limitations at its San Diego  location.  The Navy and Air Force conduct their basic training at one  location each—Great Lakes, Illinois, and Lackland Air Force Base in San  Antonio, Texas, respectively.
section_title: C-Rating Comparisons at Basic Training Locations
paragraphs: Under DOD’s installation readiness reporting system, military installation  facilities are grouped into nine separate facility classes.  Recruit barracks  are part of the “community and housing” facility class.  Figure 9 depicts the  fiscal year 2001 C-ratings for each of the nine facility classes, as well as for  the recruit barracks component of the “community and housing” facility  class, at each basic training location.
subsections: section_title: GAO’s Mission
paragraphs: The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, exists to  support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve  the performance and accountability of the federal government for the American  people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and  policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help  Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s  commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,  integrity, and reliability.
section_title: Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
paragraphs: The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is  through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and full- text files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older  products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents  using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety,  including charts and other graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and  correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site  daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail this  list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to daily E-mail alert for newly released products” under the GAO Reports heading.
subsections: section_title: Order by Mail or Phone
section_title: To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
section_title: Public Affairs