Military Training: Strategic Planning and Distributive Learning Could Benefit the Special Operations Forces Foreign Language Program
Published: 2003-09-30T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Of the 44,000 special operations forces (SOF) that perform difficult, complex, and sensitive military missions on short notice anytime and anywhere in the world, more than 12,000 (28 percent) have a foreign language requirement to operate in places where English is not spoken. In the Senate Report on the Fiscal Year 2003 National Defense Authorization Act, Congress mandated that GAO review SOF foreign language requirements and training. In this report, we (1) assess the U.S. Special Operations Command's recent actions to improve the management of the SOF foreign language program and the delivery of training, and (2) identify ways for the command to deal with ongoing challenges that limit SOF personnel's access to language-training opportunities.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Recent actions taken by the U.S. Special Operations Command are starting to address some long-standing problems with the management of the SOF foreign language program and the delivery of language training. In September 2002, the command consolidated all training under a single contractor to provide a universal, standardized curriculum and a range of delivery mechanisms for Army, Navy, and Air Force SOF components. Initial assessments suggest that the contractor's offerings are meeting contract expectations. In other actions, the program is completing an overdue assessment of SOF language requirements, developing a database of language proficiencies and training, and finding ways to take advantage of other national language-training assets. While promising, these ongoing actions are taking place without the benefit of a cohesive management framework incorporating a strategy and strategic planning to guide, integrate, and monitor its activities. Without such a framework, the program risks losing its current momentum and failing to meet new language-training needs that SOF personnel are likely to acquire as they take on expanded roles in combating terrorism and other military operations. The SOF foreign language program continues to face challenges, such as more frequent and longer deployments, that limit personnel's access to language training. Army Reserve and National Guard SOF members face additional difficulties in gaining access to centrally located training because of geographical dispersion and part-time status; they also have lower monetary incentives to acquire language proficiencies and fewer training opportunities. As a result, most SOF personnel have been unable to take needed training or required tests to qualify in their respective language(s). To address these challenges, program officials are looking into distance/distributive-learning approaches, which offer "anytime, anywhere" training that would be highly adaptable to SOF personnel needs, but they are still at an early stage in their evaluations.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: As they have recently demonstrated in Afghanistan and Iraq, special  operations forces (SOF) are playing an increasingly significant role in  U.S. military operations by performing extremely difficult, complex, and politically sensitive missions on short notice anytime and anywhere in the  world. To successfully conduct these missions, SOF personnel must  undergo extensive training—often years in duration—to acquire a wide  variety of military skills, among them a proficiency in a foreign language.  More than one-fourth of all SOF military personnel, or about 12,000 out  of 44,000, have a foreign language requirement in order to enable them to  operate effectively in countries where languages other than English  are spoken.
To meet its specific language training needs, the U.S. Special Operations  Command (the command) established a separate foreign language  program within the Department of Defense (DOD) in the early 1990s. The  command delegated the U.S. Army Special Operations Command as its  proponent for foreign language matters and, in turn, the Army command  set up the Special Operations Forces Language Office (SOFLO) to oversee  and manage the SOF foreign language program. The program prescribes  the policies for all aspects of the program, including its funding; reporting;  and delivery of initial acquisition, sustainment, and enhancement training  for SOF forces in the Army, Navy, and Air Force.
The Senate Report on the Fiscal Year 2003 National Defense Authorization  Act mandated that we review the foreign language requirements and  training for SOF personnel. In December 2002 and April 2003, we  briefed your offices on the initial results of our review. In this report, we  (1) assess recent actions taken by the U.S. Special Operations Command  to improve the management and delivery of its foreign language training  to special operations forces personnel and (2) identify ways for the  command to deal with challenges that limit accessibility to its foreign  language-training resources.
We conducted our review from October 2002 through July 2003 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Our scope and methodology are described in appendix I.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Foreign language needs have significantly increased throughout DOD and  the federal government with the presence of a wider range of security  threats, the emergence of new nation states, and the globalization of the  U.S. economy. The difficulties in maintaining sufficient foreign language  capabilities among federal agencies and departments have been identified  as a serious human capital problem for some time. The entire military  has faced shortfalls in language capability in recent operations, such as  difficulties in finding sufficient numbers of qualified language speakers  during peacekeeping operations in the Balkans and combat actions in  Afghanistan. In recent reports, we have stated that shortages of staff with  foreign language skills have affected agency operations and have hindered  U.S. military, law enforcement, intelligence, counterterrorism, and  diplomatic efforts.
The U.S. Special Operations Command faces similar challenges in  managing its SOF language training to maintain sufficient language  capability to support its missions. For example, (1) it is common for SOF  personnel to have received language training in more than three languages  during their career; (2) SOF units often operate in geographic regions  where there are numerous languages, (3) high operational demands and  force structure limitations often require SOF personnel to operate in areas  where their specific foreign language(s) are not spoken, and (4) it is  difficult to determine the right languages and personnel mix to address a  wide variety of unknown and hard-to-forecast small-scale conflicts.
The U.S. Special Operations Command established its SOF Foreign  Language Program in 1993 to provide combatant commanders with SOF  individuals and units that have the required foreign language proficiency  to meet current and future operational requirements. The command  designated the U.S. Army Special Operations Command, at Fort Bragg,  North Carolina, as the proponent in all matters related to training, policies,  programs, and procedures for SOF language requirements and capabilities.
In 1998, the Army Command established the Special Operations Forces  Language Office at Fort Bragg. Currently located in the command’s  training directorate, the office is responsible for providing technical  oversight and developing, coordinating, and executing foreign-language- training strategies for active-duty, reserve, and National Guard SOF  personnel within the three service components: the U.S. Army Special  Operations Command, the U.S. Naval Special Warfare Command, and the  U.S. Air Force Special Operations Command. The office is also  responsible for running the Army’s SOF foreign language program.  The Navy and Air Force SOF components are responsible for managing  their own language-training programs.
The foreign language program provides training for more than 12,000 SOF  military personnel (about 28 percent of all 43,671 SOF personnel) who  are required to acquire some level of proficiency in one or more foreign  languages. Of these, about 90 percent (10,833) are in the U.S. Army Special  Operations Command; more than half of them are in Army Reserve or  National Guard units. (See table 1.) The remaining 10 percent of SOF  personnel with language needs are in the U.S. Naval Special Warfare  Command (1,128) and U.S. Air Force Special Operations Command (155).The training consists of initial acquisition (becoming proficient in a new  language), sustainment (maintaining a proficiency), and enhancement  (raising a proficiency). It also includes a basic orientation to the customs  and cultures of world regions where their languages are used.
SOF personnel require foreign language skills in most of the special  operations forces’ core tasks, such as unconventional warfare,  counterterrorism, counter proliferation of weapons of mass destruction,  civil affairs, psychological operations, information operations, and foreign  internal defense. The command, in coordination with the organizations for  which it provides forces, determines the languages, levels of proficiencies,  and number of language-qualified personnel needed in its units through an  assessment of the operational needs of the geographic unified commands.Currently, SOF has requirements in more than 30 foreign languages, such  as Chinese Mandarin, Modern Arabic, Indonesian, Korean, Persian-Farsi,  Russian, and Spanish.
In contrast with other intelligence or diplomatic foreign language training,  SOF training places greater emphasis on oral communication skills  (speaking and listening) than on nonverbal skills (reading and writing) in  order to give SOF personnel the ability to communicate during operations  in the field. The level of proficiency that needs to be achieved varies by  unit and mission and can range from limited skills necessary to understand  and utter certain memorized phrases for immediate survival to more  intermediate skills (e.g., the ability to deal with concrete topics in past,  present, and future tenses) necessary to meet routine social demands and  limited job requirements. For example, the Army’s Special Forces units  (active-duty and National Guard), which account for about half of the  Army personnel with a language requirement, generally need only a limited  command of the language for immediate survival needs. Personnel who  conduct psychological operations, foreign internal defense, and civil  affairs missions generally need higher proficiency skills because of their  greater contact and interaction with local civilians and military personnel.  Although higher proficiency levels are desired, language is only one, and  often not the highest, priority of the many skills that SOF personnel must  acquire and maintain to effectively conduct their missions. Appendix II  provides information on language proficiency levels and requirements.
The special operations forces foreign language program is funded directly  through the command’s annual budget. Funding for the program  amounted to $9.5 million and $10.2 million in fiscal years 2002 and 2003,  respectively, and it is projected to be $11.1 million in fiscal year 2004.  The command provides portions of the program’s funding to each service  component command to pay for its own respective foreign language  training activities and to SOFLO to manage the program. The program’s  funding constitutes a very small portion of the command’s annual budget,  which is projected to be about $6.7 billion in fiscal year 2004.
section_title: Program Addresses Some Long-Standing Problems but Lacks a Strategic Planning Approach
paragraphs: The command and SOFLO have taken several recent actions to begin  addressing a number of long-standing problems in delivering and  managing foreign language training to special operations forces.  However, these actions are being taken without the benefit of a  cohesive management framework, which incorporates strategic planning  (a strategy and strategic plan with associated performance plans and  reports), that would guide the program, integrate its activities, and  monitor its performance. Such an approach would help the program  maintain its present momentum, better manage its human capital  challenges, and meet the language-training needs of SOF personnel as  they take on new roles and responsibilities.
subsections: section_title: Recent Actions Should Begin to Strengthen SOF Foreign Language Program
paragraphs: The command and SOFLO are taking several actions that begin to  strengthen the foreign-language-training program for SOF forces.  These actions include consolidating all language training under a  single contractor, completing a long overdue assessment of language  requirements, improving communication and coordination with all  program stakeholders, developing a database to monitor language  proficiencies and training, and looking for ways to make use of other  foreign-language-training assets. According to a SOFLO official, these  actions have been initiated in part by the command’s increased attention  since September 11, 2001, to issues involving SOF language capabilities  necessary to carry out core missions.
subsections: section_title: New B.I.B. Contract Consolidates Language Training
paragraphs: For many years, the SOF foreign-language-training program’s service  components and their units acquired language training through multiple  contractors, encompassing a variety of private companies and universities.  According to command officials, this practice led to inconsistencies in the  type and quality of training, the response to meeting new or changing  language requirements, and the way language training was acquired by  individual service components. Various contractors used different  instruction methods, and their training materials varied in quality.
In September 2002, the command awarded all of its commercial language  training to a single contractor, B.I.B. Consultants. Command officials  told us that the new 5-year contract provides for greater standardization  and a more consistent approach to language training and improves the  way language training services are acquired throughout the command.  Specifically, the new contract offers a universal, standardized training  curriculum, an ability to customize instruction to meet specific needs; a  way to attain language proficiencies faster; and a consistent monitoring of  instruction and individual performance. The contractor, a business  franchise of Berlitz International, plans to use its parent’s worldwide  resources to provide SOF personnel with a variety of instruction  services (such as classroom instruction, tutoring, and total immersion  training in a live or virtual environment). Command officials also believe  that the instruction method used by the contractor offers a way for SOF  personnel to attain proficiency faster. To fully realize the benefits of the  new contract, the command has required each of its service components  and their units to use the contract to meet all their language-training  needs, except when they take advantage of other government language  resources, such as the Defense Language Institute.
Some of the B.I.B. contract costs are higher than those in previous  contracts because the command awarded the new contract on the  basis of “best value” and gave management and technical factors higher  consideration than price. A SOFLO official estimated that the annual  contract cost is currently about $5.5 million to $6 million. If this figure  remains the same each year, the total cost of the 5-year contract is  projected to be about $30 million. A SOFLO official said that the total  amount could be higher if SOF service components utilize more of the  contract’s language services. This could happen as the service components  and their units become more familiar with the contract services and as  more SOF personnel return from current deployments and are able to  access language training. The official also said that some costs are higher  than those in prior contracts for such language-training services as total  immersion, in which students practice a language while living in another  country or in a language-controlled isolated environment. Command  officials believe the improved quality and delivery of language training  outweigh any increased cost.
B.I.B. Consultants appears to be meeting the expectations, including  having its beginning language students meet their proficiency goals, set  out in its contract with the command. At the command’s initial quarterly  contract review in March 2003, which covered the first 5 months of  implementation, command and contractor officials focused on provisions  in the contract and on procedural aspects, such as scheduling training,  providing materials, and developing contacts. Command officials brought  up several issues largely related to the cost and implementation of  immersion training, classroom requirements for instructors and materials,  and the delivery of tactical language training. On the basis of discussions  among attendees and our observations at the review, none of the issues  discussed appeared irresolvable, and most of them could be addressed by  improved communications and more experience in understanding and  executing the contract. For example, B.I.B. officials agreed to work with  the service components to find ways to reduce some immersion training  costs. A second contract review was held in August 2003.
According to SOFLO, each of the command’s service components is using  the language services provided under the B.I.B. contract, and the results  from some initial acquisition classes indicate that students are achieving  most of the proficiency goals. A B.I.B. contract manager told us that the  company believes it is successfully implementing the provisions of its  contract. The official said that B.I.B. Consultants and Berlitz International  had formed a joint team in October 2002 to manage all contract operations  necessary to provide the full range of training services requested by the  government. The official said that B.I.B. had successfully delivered the  services requested through July 2003 and had promptly addressed the few  issues (e.g., higher costs for immersion training and the quality of some  materials) that arose. Appendix III provides additional information on  the status of the contract’s implementation at the command’s service  components and our analysis of the preliminary results of the students’  performance under the new contract.
section_title: Language Requirement Assessment Nears Completion
paragraphs: In another action, the command is nearing the completion of a  long-overdue assessment of its SOF foreign language requirements.  The assessment is based on the operational requirements identified by  the command in conjunction with the geographic unified commanders.  It validates the languages, proficiency levels, and number of positions in  each SOF unit that are needed to conduct special operations missions.
The assessment is used by the SOF service components and SOFLO  to determine future language-training requirements. Although such  assessments are supposed to be conducted at least every 2 years, this is  the first commandwide assessment since 1997. Command officials expect  the assessment to be approved by the fall of 2003.
section_title: Communications and Coordination with Other Stakeholders Is Increasing
paragraphs: SOFLO is in the process of expanding its communications and  coordination with all of the stakeholders that are involved in delivering  language training to SOF personnel. According to officials at the Navy  and Air Force SOF components, the Defense Language Institute, and  DOD headquarters, SOFLO officials have recently increased their  contacts and visits with them to discuss language issues and ways to  improve coordination.
In addition, in December 2002, SOFLO reinstituted an annual language  conference, which had not been held since 1997, that is designed to  serve as a forum where SOF language issues can be discussed and  resolved. Conference attendees included command representatives from  headquarters and the service components and guests from the intelligence,  academic, and other language-using communities who were invited to gain  an appreciation of the differences between SOF requirements and other  DOD language organizations and obtain their perspectives. SOFLO held  another conference in August 2003.
SOFLO also has recently developed an Internet-based Web site to provide  information on SOF language training, including schedules of courses and  other training opportunities; links to the latest directives, policies, and  procedures; training help-aids; points of contacts; upcoming events; and  information about the B.I.B. contract and other language resources.  Although some difficulties remain with providing all SOF personnel with  full access to the Web site, a SOFLO official told us that the Web site  should help increase the program’s visibility and provide information  about the command’s language training.
Several Navy, Air Force, and command officials we talked with said that,  over the years, SOFLO’s attention has focused largely on Army SOF  language issues and has paid less attention to the Navy and Air Force  language programs. These officials said that SOFLO’s recent efforts to  increase its visits and contacts, hold an annual conference, and develop  other communication tools should help to bring more balance and an  increased “joint” focus to the program. Also, Defense Language Institute  officials stated that the increased contacts between their organization and  SOFLO would allow the institute to better understand SOF language needs  and determine how it could best support the program.
section_title: New Database Is Being Developed to Improve Tracking of Language Training and Readiness
paragraphs: SOFLO is developing a central, standardized database to capture  information on the language training and proficiency status of SOF  personnel and to assess language capabilities across the services. A  SOFLO official said that full implementation of the database is critical  because there is currently no centralized commandwide system to track  or access information related to language readiness or training. Service  components and their units will be responsible for updating their portion  of the data each quarter. In the future, SOFLO plans to develop a  Web-based, data-entry capability to make updating easier and more  user friendly.
section_title: Program Explores Use of Other National Language Assets
paragraphs: While most language-training needs are met by the new B.I.B. contract,  SOFLO is exploring ways to expand its use of other national language  resources to complement and provide additional support for its program.  Such language assets can offer training and technology capabilities that  are not available in the SOF program, include the following:
The Defense Language Institute, which is DOD’s primary source of  language instruction, has developed tactical language help-aids  (e.g., pocket cards with key phases and words) that can be used to support  language needs during military operations. The institute also provides  real-time video language instruction for many military facilities around the  world and is developing other distance/distributive-learning capabilities.  Several SOF unit personnel told us that they value the institute’s resident  training and would attend if their time allowed it.
The Satellite Communications for Learning (SCOLA) broadcast network’sprogramming provides access to most world languages, including less  common languages that are not often taught in the United States. By  watching and listening, students are able to actually experience the foreign  culture and develop their language skills in a native real-life environment.  The broadcasts also provide significant insight into the internal events of  the various countries. The SOF unit personnel we spoke with said that the  network helps students sustain language skills, learn dialects, and improve  cross-cultural understanding. SCOLA officials told us that over the next  5 years, they plan to increase the programming, provide Internet delivery  of services, improve their infrastructure to better respond to special  program requests, and develop on-demand digital video archiving of  past programs.
The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is developing new  technologies to improve language translation capabilities. These  include hand-held devices that provide limited real-time, face-to-face  speech translation in the field. These devices initially were developed  for users involved in medical first-response, force-protection, and  refugee-reunification missions. SOF personnel used some of these  devices during the recent Afghanistan operations. While not a substitute  for individual language skills, these new technologies help bridge some  language gaps in the field.
section_title: SOF Language Program Lacks Cohesive Strategic Planning
paragraphs: While these ongoing actions begin to improve and strengthen the foreign  language program, SOFLO is implementing them without the benefit of a  cohesive management framework that incorporates strategic planning  (a strategy and strategic plan with associated performance plan and  reports). According to a command directive, SOFLO is responsible for  developing a long-range SOF language acquisition strategy. Although  SOFLO has drafted a document outlining a strategy, this has not yet been  approved. A SOFLO official told us that the strategy is expected to be  issued by the end of 2003.
Strategic planning is essential for this type of program because it provides  the tools for applying good management practices. Such tools include a  statement of the program’s results-oriented goals and objectives, the  strategy it will use to achieve those goals and objectives, including key  milestones and priorities, and the measurements (both quantitative and  qualitative) that it will use to monitor and report on its progress, identify  necessary corrective actions, and better manage risk. These tools also  provide a mechanism to better align, establish clear linkages, and assign  roles and responsibilities in the organizational structure and determine the  program resources needed. Such planning requires top leadership support  and, if done well, is continuous, involves all program stakeholders, and  provides the basis for everything an organization does each day to support  the achievement of its goals and objectives.
Using strategic planning for SOF’s foreign language program would also  be consistent with the general management principles set forth in the  Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, which is the primary  legislative framework for strategic planning in the federal government. In  our prior reports and guidance, we have also emphasized the importance  of integrating human capital considerations into strategic planning to  more effectively plan and manage people’s needs and to address future  workforce challenges, such as investments in training and developing  people. We recently released an exposure draft that outlines a framework  consisting of a set of principles and key questions that federal agencies  can use to ensure that their training and development investments are  targeted strategically. Additionally, the Office of the Secretary of Defense,  in recognition of the need for a more strategic approach to human capital  planning, published the Military Personnel Human Resources Strategic  Plan in April 2002 to establish military personnel priorities for the next  several years.
Strategic planning—a strategy and strategic plan with an associated  performance plan and reports—would ensure that good management  principles are being used to manage the program and achieve the  results-oriented goals and objectives established for the program. Aligning  this planning with DOD’s overall human capital strategy would further  ensure that the pervasive human capital challenges facing the SOF foreign  language program are considered in the broader context of overall DOD  military personnel priorities. Without such a cohesive management  framework, the program may lose its current momentum, and it may be  unable to meet the new language-training needs that SOF personnel are  likely to have as they take on expanded roles and responsibilities in  counterterrorism and other military operations.
section_title: Approach Needed to Improve Access to Language-Training Resources
paragraphs: The SOF foreign-language-training program continues to face ongoing  challenges that limit the access that special operations forces have to take  advantage of language-training opportunities. These challenges include  more frequent and longer deployments for active-duty, reserve, and  guard units. In addition, Army Reserve and National Guard members face  further hurdles in getting access to training because of their geographic  dispersion and part-time status. These members also receive lower  monetary incentives for achieving required proficiencies and fewer  training opportunities than active-duty members. Greater reliance on  SOF personnel in combating terrorism may increase these challenges.  Recognizing the underlying problems of access, SOFLO has begun  looking into nontraditional training methods, such as distance/distributive- learning tools, including tools that provide on-demand “anytime anywhere”  language training. But program officials are still at an early stage in  their evaluations.
subsections: section_title: Ongoing Challenges Affect Access to Language Training
paragraphs: Acquiring and maintaining a proficiency in a foreign language takes  continuous practice and, because it is a highly perishable skill, it can  deteriorate rapidly without such practice. As a result, SOF personnel  need to have a wide range of options to gain access to language-training  resources at anytime and anywhere they are stationed or deployed.
However, the SOF language program is facing several challenges that  affect accessibility to language training. In recent years, both active-duty  and reserve/guard SOF personnel have had less time for overall training  because they have been deployed more frequently and for longer periods  of time. In addition, when they have had time to train, their language  training has often competed with other higher-priority training needs, such  as marksmanship or nuclear-biological-chemical training. As a result, they  have often been unable to complete the necessary language training to  reach required proficiencies and to take the necessary tests to qualify in  their respective language(s).
Furthermore, Army Reserve and National Guard soldiers, who make up  more than half of the total number of SOF personnel requiring language  proficiency,face additional hurdles in finding time and gaining access to  language training. These soldiers are spread across 28 states and are often  located at long distances from their unit’s facilities, making it difficult to  get to centrally located training resources. In addition, they have fewer  days available for training because of their part-time status.
Moreover, because of their part-time status, Army Reserve and National  Guard soldiers have lower monetary incentives to undertake language  training than do active-duty personnel. According to SOFLO, active-duty  Army SOF personnel receive foreign language proficiency pay, for  example, of $100 each month if they attain a language proficiency level  of 2. By contrast, Army Reserve and National Guard personnel get  $13.33 each month if they attain the same proficiency because their  proficiency pay is prorated according to the number of days they train.Many of the more than 50 Army Reserve and National Guard soldiers we  spoke with said that, despite the hurdles, they often undertake language  training on their own time because of the value they place on foreign  language skills in conducting their missions. They added that higher  proficiency pay allowances would give them more incentive to study  language and improve their proficiencies. In its May 2002 report, DOD’s  Ninth Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation recommended that  the services be authorized to pay their reserve and guard members the  same monthly amount as active-duty members for maintaining proficiency  in designated critical languages in order to provide consistency in the  application of special pay between reserve and active-duty members.
Additionally, a SOFLO official told us that current pay and allowancefunding levels for Army Reserve and National Guard units do not allow  units to send more soldiers to language courses at the command’s  language schools and unit programs and Defense Language Institute. The  official said that this issue may become more of a concern in fiscal year  2004, when the U.S. Army Recruiting Command will no longer fund the  pay and allowance for initial-entry reserve soldiers going into civil affairs  and psychological operations positions to attend the Defense Language  Institute. The official said, however, that these proficiency pay and funding  issues are not limited to foreign language training but are broader DOD  issues that affect reserve and guard personnel throughout the military.
These access constraints have prevented large numbers of SOF  personnel from getting the necessary training (both initial and sustainment  training) and taking the annual tests that are necessary to qualify in their  language(s). As table 2 shows, for the quarter ending in March 2003,  more than 11,200 SOF personnel, or 93 percent of the 12,116 of those who  had a language requirement, needed to take either initial or sustainment  training. According to a SOFLO official, these statistics may be higher  than usual because of recent deployments to the Middle East and because  of some administrative underreporting. Earlier quarters in 2002 show that  about 75 percent of SOF personnel required training. As table 2 also  indicates, most of the training needs for Navy SOF personnel were for  initial language acquisition (83 percent of 1,128), while for Army and  Air Force SOF members, the training needs were primarily for sustainment  (85 and 64 percent, respectively).
In reflection of this trend, the number of SOF personnel who have taken a  proficiency test and have qualified in their respective language(s) within  the last 12 months is low. As table 3 shows, in every subsequent quarter  since the quarter ending September 2002, less than 25 percent of all Army,  Navy, and Air Force SOF personnel with language requirements have been  tested within the last 12 months and have met or exceeded the required  proficiency to qualify in their respective language(s). This percentage  decreased in the subsequent quarters. While acknowledging some  administrative underreporting of data, a SOFLO official attributed the low  qualification levels to the longer and more frequent deployments that  hinder SOF personnel from getting the training they need to take and pass  the language tests. The official said that the goal for proficiency varies by  unit but that the units’ goals—having the total percentage of personnel in  the unit meet the language requirement—in the command’s draft foreign  language strategy for the largest groups of SOF personnel requiring  language skills are 80 and 50 percent for U.S. Army Special Operations  Command active-duty and reserve component units, respectively. The  proficiency goal for U.S. Naval Special Warfare Command and U.S. Air  Force Special Operations Command units is 50 percent.
According to a SOFLO official, the number of SOF personnel annually  tested in their respective language(s) could be increased if more certified  oral testers were available to administer the Oral Proficiency Interview,the scheduling of these tests was more flexible, and the services allowed  greater use of these tests for language(s) qualification. While most SOF  personnel qualify in their languages by taking the Defense Language  Proficiency Test, an Oral Proficiency Interview can also be used when the  Defense Language Proficiency Test is not available in a given language.  The SOFLO official stated that SOF prefers the oral test when it can be  used because of the importance placed on verbal skills in conducting  SOF missions. However, the certified oral testers, who are normally  members of the Defense Language Institute’s teaching staff, are sometimes  unavailable because they are teaching or doing other primary duties.  Coordinating the schedules of the institute’s staff and the SOF members  to conduct the tests is also difficult. For example, while reserve and guard  members are primarily available to take the tests on weekends during their  unit’s drill time, it is not always possible for the institute to schedule the  two testers that are required to administer the test in a given language  during that same time. Additionally, the SOFLO official stated that a  draft Department of the Army language regulation would allow use of the  oral test even if a Defense Language Proficiency Test exists for a given  language. The official said that SOFLO is working with the Navy and the  Air Force to make similar changes to their language regulations.
As DOD places greater emphasis on the capabilities of special operations  forces, especially those related to counterterrorism, command officials  told us that these forces are unlikely to experience any change in the  frequency or length of their deployments. Although command officials said  they are still unsure about the impact of these changes on SOF language  needs, the problems of access are likely to continue.
section_title: Distance/Distributive Learning Could Provide Better Access to Language Training
paragraphs: According to SOFLO officials, some of accessibility challenges may  be addressed by the development or expanded use of distance/distributive- training tools, such as Internet-based training, multimedia technologies,  and SCOLA foreign language broadcasts. While the new B.I.B. contract  provides additional flexibility and training options, it focuses primarily  on traditional methods of delivering language training, such as classroom  training, one-on-one tutoring, and total-immersion training. This type  of live, person-to-person instruction is the preferred method for most  language learning. However, distance/distributive-learning tools,  particularly those tools that deliver on-demand “anytime, anywhere”  training, offer options that can be effectively adapted to the training needs  of SOF personnel.
Distance/distributive learning encompasses a wide range of delivery  methods, including video tele-training, computer conferencing, and  correspondence courses. In recent years, DOD has sought to develop  the next generation of distance/distributive learning—advanced  distributed learning—which expands the range of options for providing  DOD personnel with access to high-quality education and training, tailored  to individual needs and delivered cost-effectively, whenever and wherever  it is required. Advanced distributed learning includes Internet-based  instruction, simulation, integrated networked systems, and digital  knowledge repositories. DOD’s March 2002 Training Transformation  Strategy emphasizes the use of such learning methodologies to  ensure that training is readily available to both active and reserve  military personnel, regardless of time and place. Table 4 shows the  continuum of learning delivery methods from classroom to advanced  distributed learning.
SOFLO officials have begun evaluating some of the distance/distributive- learning options for language training that DOD has been developing for  its own language-training programs. They told us that some of these efforts  might be adaptable to the SOF program, as shown in the following:
The Defense Language Institute, in collaboration with the National  Cryptologic School, Foreign Service Institute, and the National Foreign  Language Center, are developing an Internet-based learning support  system, called LangNet, which provides language learners and teachers  with access to on-line language materials. The Defense Language Institute  is also expanding its video tele-training capabilities to provide students  located throughout the world with real-time language instruction.
The U.S. Army Intelligence Center at Fort Huachuca, Arizona, is leading an  initiative called Broadband Intelligence Training System, or BITS, to use  commercial broadband technology as a way to provide individuals with  Internet-based tele-training at the unit or at home. SOFLO officials believe  that this distance-learning tool shows the promise of delivering on-demand  courseware in various languages with minimal technology requirements  and being effective for initial acquisition training.
The Defense Advance Research Projects Agency is developing a  language-training simulation, which may be useful when speech  recognition software hurdles are resolved.
SOFLO also wants to expand the availability of individual multimedia  tools, e.g., CD-ROM and DVD media and players, so that SOF personnel  could use such tools at any location. Additionally, the Army’s John F.  Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School at Fort Bragg, North Carolina,  is developing computer-based language courses that can be accessed  through an Army learning site or through correspondence. Distributive  learning was the principal theme of the command’s annual SOF language  conference in August 2003, and SOFLO provided attendees with  information on various language-oriented initiatives.
A SOFLO official told us that distance/distributive-learning approaches  are most beneficial for providing individuals who already have some  language proficiency with sustainment training or enhancement training.  While useful, these approaches are often not considered the best options  for those individuals who need initial acquisition language training where  person-to-person interaction is most desired. The official said that  SOFLO is still in the early stages of evaluating and determining which  distance/distributive-learning options are best suited to its program and  the resources it will need to incorporate them into its program.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: While the U.S. Special Operations Command has taken several recent  actions to begin improving the delivery of language training and the  management of its foreign language program, these actions have been  taken without the benefit of a cohesive management framework combined  with strategic planning tools. At the forefront of the recent actions is a  major shift in the way that the program provides language training for  active-duty, reserve, and guard SOF personnel in the Army, Navy, and  Air Force. Rather than using multiple contractors, the command has  consolidated all of the training under a single contractor to provide a  standardized curriculum and standardized training materials, more flexible  delivery mechanisms, and consistent monitoring of student and teacher  performance. These ongoing management actions address a wide range  of issues, including the need for more coordination and communication  within the program, the creation of a database to track language  proficiencies and training requirements, and better utilization of other  national language assets. However, because the program has not yet  issued a strategy and developed the necessary strategic-planning tools  (a strategic plan with an associated performance plan and reports) to  carry it out, the value and impact of these disparate actions on the  program as a whole is difficult to evaluate. As a first step, the command  could issue a strategy for meeting SOF language requirements to establish  its vision for language training across the command. As a second step, the  command could use the strategic vision to develop necessary strategic  planning tools to guide the program in the future. Such strategic planning  with the support of top leadership would allow the program to determine  what actions are needed to meet its overall goals and objectives; ensure  that these actions are well integrated with each other; identify key target  dates, priorities, and the resources needed to undertake them; develop  performance measures to assess their progress and effectiveness; identify  corrective actions; and better manage risk. It also should be aligned with  DOD’s overall human capital efforts to more effectively address its  personnel challenges. Without a cohesive management framework based  on strategic planning, the program risks losing the momentum it has  achieved so far and risk failing to meet the growing needs of special  operations forces for increasingly critical foreign language skills.
Despite continuing challenges in accessing training, the development of  distance/distributive learning promises to offer SOF personnel greater  access to language resources. While SOF personnel are often unable to  take advantage of traditional, instructor-based language training because  of long deployments and geographical dispersion, they could benefit from  distance/distributive-training approaches that offer more flexibility and  accessibility to language training, including on-demand, “anytime,  anywhere” options. The use of distance/distributive learning would also  provide a good complement to the training services offered by the  command’s new contract. The command has an opportunity to support  several promising DOD distance/distributive-learning initiatives under way  with participation and resources. Also, DOD could consider expanding  the use and availability of oral proficiency interview testing to provide  additional opportunities for SOF personnel to test and qualify each year  in their respective language(s). DOD could also consider changing the  amount paid to Army Reserve and National Guard soldiers for foreign  language proficiency to provide additional incentive for them to maintain  and improve their language skills and provide more pay and allowance  funds for these soldiers to allow more to attend language schools and  pursue other venues for language training. Such changes might be a way to  provide greater assurance that Army Reserve and National Guard soldiers  take advantage of current language training and training that becomes  available through the use of distance/distributive learning.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To strengthen the management and delivery of foreign language training  for special operations forces, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense  direct the Commander of the U.S. Special Operations Command to adopt a strategy for meeting special operations forces’ foreign language  requirements and develop the necessary strategic-planning tools (a  strategic plan with associated performance plan and reports) to use in  managing and assessing the progress of its foreign language program and  to better address future human capital challenges and  incorporate distance/distributive-learning approaches into the program to  improve the special operations forces’ access to language training, and if  additional resources are required, to request them.
In addition, the Secretary of Defense should evaluate current (1) foreign  language proficiency pay rates and (2) pay and allowance funding levels  for Army Reserve and National Guard personnel to determine if changes  are needed to provide them with a greater incentive to undertake language  study and allow for more personnel to attend language schools and other  training venues. Furthermore, the Secretary of Defense should examine  options for increasing the use and availability of oral proficiency foreign  language testing to provide additional opportunities for SOF personnel to  test and qualify in their respective languages.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD concurred with all  but one of our recommendations. DOD’s comments are reprinted in  appendix IV.
DOD did not agree with our recommendation that the U.S. Special  Operations Command adopt a strategy and develop strategic-planning  tools to strengthen the management and delivery of foreign language  training for special operations forces. DOD stated in its comments that the  command’s current draft of a SOF language strategy is in its infancy and  needs to be properly reviewed through various DOD organizations before  the Secretary of Defense could direct its adoption. Although nothing in our  draft report was meant to suggest that the draft language strategy should  be implemented without proper review, we clarified this recommendation  to state that the command adopt “a strategy,” rather than any particular  draft of a strategy. While we recognize that it may take some time for the  command to prepare and approve such a document, we would note  that the command has a longstanding internal requirement, which dates  to 1998, for the program to have such a strategy. In its comments, DOD did  not address the second part of the recommendation, which called for the  development, in tandem with a strategy, of strategic planning tools to use  in managing and assessing the program’s progress and address future  human capital challenges. We continue to believe that the timely adoption  of both a strategy and planning tools is an essential step for ensuring the  effective management of the SOF foreign language program.
DOD concurred with our other recommendations, specifically that the  command incorporate distributed learning approaches into its SOF foreign  language training; that the Secretary of Defense evaluate the current  foreign language proficiency pay rates and pay and allowance funding  levels for Army Reserve and National Guard personnel; and that the  Secretary examine options to increase the use and availability of oral  proficiency testing.
We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional  committees; the Secretary of Defense; the Commander of the U.S. Special Operations Command; and the Director, Office of Management and  Budget. We will make copies available to others upon request. In addition,  the report will available at no charge on the GAO Web site at  http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions, please call me on (757) 552-8100.  An additional GAO contact and other staff members who made key  contributions to this report are listed in appendix V.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: In conducting our review, we focused on the foreign language training  that the U.S. Special Operations Command (the command) and its service  component commands in the Army, Navy, and Air Force provide for  special operations forces (SOF) personnel. This training is offered to  active-duty, reserve, and National Guard SOF personnel who have foreign  language proficiency requirements. We discussed SOF language issues  with a variety of officials at the Department of Defense (DOD), service  headquarters offices, the command’s headquarters offices, Special  Operations Forces Language Office (SOFLO) and service component  commands, the Defense Language Institute, and other stakeholders that  provide or use the command’s language training. The organizations and  offices that we contacted during our review are listed in table 5.
To assess the command’s recent actions to improve the management and  delivery of its SOF foreign language training, we obtained documents  and spoke with various stakeholders who use or support the training. In  particular, we talked with officials at SOFLO about their responsibilities  and the recent actions they have undertaken for the SOF language  program. We reviewed DOD and command guidance, policies, speeches,  reports, and other documents to increase our understanding of the  program’s history and issues. We spoke with individuals in active-duty,  reserve, and National Guard SOF units to learn their perspectives on  obtaining language training and on achieving and retaining language  proficiencies. Specifically, we did the following:
We discussed the command’s new language services contract with  command contracting officials and officials at each of the service  components. We visited the contractor, B.I.B. Consultants, to discuss its  use of teaching methodologies and management strategies to implement  the contract. To obtain information about the first 11 months of language  training (October 2002-August 2003) under the new contract, we  (1) attended the command’s first quarterly contract reviews in March  and August 2003; (2) discussed classes and other training activities with  command and service components officials, B.I.B. Consultants and Berlitz  International representatives, and language instructors and SOF students;  and (3) conducted analyses of student end-of-course evaluations and  proficiency results.
We talked with command headquarters and SOFLO officials about the  command’s progress in assessing the SOF language requirements and  in changing the way it communicates and coordinates (e.g., via annual  conference, Internet-based Web site, etc.) with its various stakeholders.  We attended the command’s 2003 language conference. Although we  reviewed the process for determining SOF language requirements, we  did not examine the specific criteria and rationale for decisions made  for those requirements (e.g., languages, number of personnel needed,  and proficiency levels required for units) in its recent assessment.
To determine the extent to which the SOF language program uses other  national language training assets, we obtained information from and met  with officials at the Defense Language Institute, Satellite Communications  for Learning (SCOLA), Defense Applied Research Projects Agency, and  Foreign Service Institute. We also attended a SCOLA language conference  that focused on the use of its broadcasts to support government language  programs.
To understand the use and merits of strategic planning and how it could  benefit the SOF language program, we reviewed our prior work on  strategic planning and strategic human capital management and the  general management principles laid out in the Government Performance  and Results Act of 1993.
In conducting our review of student end-of-course evaluations to  determine the satisfaction of students with classes taught by B.I.B.  under the new contract, we requested student evaluations from the Army’s  John F. Kennedy Center and School for the first quarter of fiscal year 2003  and from the Naval Special Warfare Command’s Group 1 for the second  quarter of fiscal year 2003. The Army’s school and the Navy’s Group 1  provided evaluations from 11 (out of 22) classes and 3 (out of 3) classes,  respectively. An Army school official told us that the contractor could not  provide the evaluations for the other 11 classes we requested because the  evaluations had been misplaced. As a result, our evaluation results may  not be fully representative of the views of all students in all classes  because the missing evaluations may have different responses from those  that did respond and were provided to GAO. In conducting our analysis,  we selected three questions from the student end-of course evaluations  that, in our judgment, provided an indication of the overall effectiveness of  the course, the instructor’s performance, and the usefulness of course  materials. We also reviewed individual student proficiency scores from  22 initial acquisition classes conducted at the Army’s school at Fort Bragg,  North Carolina, to determine the performance of students in reaching  end-of-course proficiency goals.
In identifying ways for the command to deal with challenges that limit  accessibility to its foreign language training resources, we interviewed  officials at SOFLO and the service component commands to understand  the training requirements and resources and determine the challenges  faced by SOF personnel in gaining accessing language training. We  examined information from SOFLO’s language database to assess the  extent to which more frequent and longer deployments may affect SOF  personnel’s access to the training they need to pass exams and qualify  in their particular languages. We also talked with more than 50 members  of Army Reserve and National Guard units to better understand their  particular difficulties and limitations in getting training. We spoke  with officials at the Defense Language Institute and visited their  facilities to obtain information about their ongoing efforts to develop  distance/distributed learning and advanced distributed-learning  methods. We also met with Defense Applied Research Projects Agency  officials to discuss how their new technologies could support SOF  language-training needs.
We performed our review from October 2002 through July 2003 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
section_title: Appendix II: Language Proficiency Levels and Requirements
paragraphs: The special operations forces foreign language-training program uses the  foreign language proficiency scale established by the federal Interagency  Language Roundtable. The scale ranks individuals’ language skills in  terms of their ability to listen, read, speak, and write in a foreign language.  The scale has six basic proficiency levels, ranging from zero to 5; level  zero indicates no language capability, and level 5 indicates proficiency  in the language. A plus (+) designation is added if the proficiency  substantially exceeds one skill level but does not fully meet the criteria for  the next level. Table 6 shows the language capabilities required for each  proficiency level.
Language proficiency levels are established for SOF personnel during  the U.S. Special Operations Command’s biennial assessment of language  requirements, which is done in conjunction with geographic unified  commanders. The assessment identifies the languages, the proficiency  levels, and the number of individuals needed with these skills in the  commanders’ geographic regions. Table 7 shows the required (minimum)  and the desired proficiency levels for each service component and  specialty. For example, Army SOF members who work in civil affairs  and psychological operations where they frequently interact with local  populations require a proficiency level of 2 for listening, reading, and  speaking. Army Special Forces, on the other hand, require only a level 0+  to perform their missions, although a higher standard is desired.
section_title: Appendix III: Status of the Language Services Contract between the U.S. Special Operations Command and B.I.B. Consultants
paragraphs: In accordance with its language services contract with the U.S. Special  Operations Command, B.I.B. Consultants is providing various types of  training for special operations forces personnel at each of the command’s  service components. As shown in table 8, this training ranges from  language instruction, to beginning students with no foreign language  proficiency, to those students who have acquired some proficiency. It  consists of language study conducted in a traditional classroom setting;  one-on-one instructor/student training; and total immersion training,  where students practice their language(s) in a live or virtual environment.The training also includes an orientation of the customs, culture, and  common phrases for the area where the student’s language is used.
During the first 9 months (October 2002 to July 2003) of the contract,  B.I.B. training varied at each of the SOF service components. For example,  from October 2002 to July 2003, B.I.B. conducted over 40 initial acquisition  language classes for more than 500 students in 13 different languages at  the Army’s John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School at  Fort Bragg, North Carolina. From January through February 2003, B.I.B.  also provided initial acquisition language training for 10 students in three  languages (3 classes) at the Navy’s Special Warfare Command’s Group 1  at Coronado, California. According to the Air Force command language  program manager, B.I.B. is expected to start providing initial acquisition  language training for Air Force SOF personnel at Hurlburt Field,  Florida, where the Air Force recently established a language-training  lab. According to a B.I.B. contract manager, B.I.B. has also provided  16 immersion sessions in various languages for students in each of the  service components as of the end-of-July 2003 (9, 6, and 1, respectively, for  the Navy, Army, and Air Force).
According to a Special Operations Forces Language Office official,  students’ proficiency scores after completing B.I.B.-taught classes at the  Army’s school are about the same as those achieved under prior contracts.  Additionally, six students in an accelerated pilot class achieved scores that  met or exceeded the minimum proficiency level. Our review of students’  proficiency scores from all the initial acquisition classes (a total of 22),  including the Spanish pilot course that began at the Army school during  the first quarter of fiscal year 2003, showed that 6 percent (11 students)  of the 171 students did not meet the 0+ requirement for listening and  2 percent (4 students) did not meet the 0+ requirement for reading.  (See fig. 1.) However, all of those students did meet the alternate goal,  which is to attain at least a 0+ on an Oral Proficiency Interview. Although  only a small number of Navy SOF personnel have received training under  the B.I.B. contract, a Naval Special Warfare Command Group 1 official  said that students’ proficiency scores from the first three B.I.B. initial  acquisition language classes (a total of 10 students) conducted from  January through February 2003 exceeded the results of classes conducted  under previous contracts.
We analyzed student end-of-course evaluations for about half of the  initial acquisition classes offered at the Army’s school during the first  quarter of 2003. The evaluations were designed and administered by  B.I.B. Students were asked to rate their satisfaction with (1) their  progress, (2) the instructor, and (3) the usefulness of the materials. As  table 9 shows, most students said they were extremely or very satisfied  with their instructor’s performance. Most students also expressed some  satisfaction with their progress and the usefulness of course materials.  However, it should be noted that 13 out of 77 evaluations indicated  dissatisfaction with their progress, and 17 out of 77 evaluations also  indicated dissatisfaction with the usefulness of the course materials.  At the Army school, the Army, as required under the B.I.B. contract,  provides course materials.
We also analyzed student end-of-course evaluations for three classes  taught by B.I.B. at the Naval Special Warfare Command’s Group 1,  Coronado, California, during the second quarter 2003. Unlike the Army,  which used B.I.B.’s evaluation, the Navy designed and administered its  own evaluation. In these evaluations, students were also asked to evaluate  their courses in three areas: sufficient instruction time; instructor’s ability  to effectively teach, and the quality of instructional material. As table 10  indicates, all responses rated the three areas as “excellent or good,” with  the exception of the Indonesian class where two out of three students  rated the “quality of materials” as “average.” Although only one of the  three classes used B.I.B. course materials as required by the contract,  classes that started in July 2003 are using the B.I.B.-provided materials.
We did not review student evaluations at the U.S. Air Force Special  Operations Command because no classes were completed during the time  we conducted our work.
section_title: Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: Contact
section_title: Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the individual named above, Mark J. Wielgoszynski,  Marie A. Mak, Corinna A. Wengryn, Nancy L. Benco, and Deborah Long  made key contributions to this report.