1). 2). Army and Marine Corps Have Captured Limited Information on Language and Culture Predeployment Training for Ongoing Operations

The Army and Marine Corps have captured some information at the unit  level for those service members who completed language and culture  predeployment training for ongoing operations. Service documents also note that language and culture  training completion and corresponding proficiency should be documented  in service-level systems. While the  Army collects some language proficiency data within this system, the  Army considers these data unreliable because of weaknesses in its  approach to collecting them. In January 2011, the Army established a task force to improve the  accuracy of information on service members’ language proficiency  available within the Total Army Personnel Database. At the time of our  review, the Army Language Tracking Task Force had identified a number  of key tasks and was at varying stages of completing its work. However, although  several language training programs met the criteria established in DOD  and service guidance, we found that the Marine Corps had not required  marines who completed significant language training to take a Defense  Language Proficiency Test system of tests to measure their language  proficiency. Therefore, the Marine Corps does not have language  proficiency data for these marines. By not capturing information within service-level training and personnel  systems on the training that general purpose forces have completed and  the proficiency they gained from training, the Army and Marine Corps do  not have the information they need to effectively leverage the language  and culture knowledge and skills of these forces when making individual  assignments and assessing future operational needs. Army and Marine Corps Have Not Developed Plans to Sustain Language Skills Already Acquired through Predeployment Training

DOD and service guidance address the need to sustain language skills  and the DOD strategic plan for language, regional, and culture skills calls  for the services to build on existing language skills for future needs. Officials  with Army and Marine Corps units preparing for deployment and those  deployed in Afghanistan reported that some informal follow-on training  programs were available to service members to sustain language skills,  for example, utilizing self-directed learning tools such as computer-based  training programs. The Marine Corps is not planning to sustain the Afghan  language skills of marines that were acquired through predeployment  training with a formal training program. In the absence of formal sustainment training to maintain and  build upon service members’ language skills acquired for ongoing  operations at considerable expense in time and resources, the Army and  Marine Corps may miss opportunities to capitalize on the investments  they have already made to provide predeployment language training. However, by not capturing  information within service-level training and personnel systems on the  completion of language and culture training and corresponding  proficiency gained from training, the Army and Marine Corps do not have  the information they need to effectively leverage the language and culture  knowledge and skills of these forces when making individual assignments  and assessing future operational needs. Despite  the fact that the Army and Marine Corps have made considerable  investments to provide some service members with extensive  predeployment language training, the services have not determined which  service members require follow-on training to sustain language skills, the  amount of training required, or appropriate mechanisms for delivering the  training. First, DOD pointed out  that our report noted the extent to which the Army and Marine Corps used  service-level training and personnel systems to record service members’  proficiency gained from predeployment training that meets DOD’s  definition of “significant language training.” DOD stated that, since it  believed the current definition in the report may have taken the definition  out of context, it would like to clarify what constitutes a “significant  language training event,” noting that DOD Instruction 5160.71 defines  such an event as “at least 150 hours of immersion training or 6  consecutive weeks of 5-hours-a day classroom training, or other  significant event as defined by the Secretaries of the Military Departments  and the Heads of Defense Agencies and DOD Field Activities.” DOD  stated that this definition was not intended to be associated with the initial  acquisition of a language, but rather is associated with modifying the  retesting interval for someone who has already achieved a measured  proficiency. To evaluate the  extent to which the Army and Marine Corps captured information within  service-level training and personnel systems on the completion of  language and culture training and proficiency gained by personnel  through training, we focused on Army and Marine Corps language and  culture predeployment training programs administered since 2009 to  prepare general purpose forces for ongoing operations in Afghanistan  and Iraq.
Why GAO Did This Study

The Department of Defense (DOD) has emphasized the importance of developing language skills and knowledge of foreign cultures to meet current and future needs and is investing millions of dollars to provide language and culture predeployment training to its general purpose forces. DOD has also noted that such training should be viewed as a long-term investment and that training and personnel systems should better account for the knowledge and skills of service members acquired through training to help manage its forces. The committee report accompanying a proposed bill for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 5136) directed GAO to review language and culture training for Army and Marine Corps general purpose forces. For this report, GAO evaluated the extent to which these services (1) captured information in training and personnel systems on the completion of language and culture predeployment training and proficiency gained from training and (2) developed plans to sustain language skills acquired through predeployment training. GAO analyzed service documents and interviewed cognizant officials.

What GAO Found

The Army and Marine Corps have documented some information at the unit level for service members who completed language and culture predeployment training, but the services have not fully captured information within service-level training and personnel systems on service members who completed training or their corresponding proficiency. DOD and service guidance require the services to document language and culture training completion and proficiency gained from training in service-level systems. However, GAO identified several factors that limited the services' ability to implement this guidance. For example, the Army's primary training system did not have data fields for all mandatory language and culture tasks and, as a result, units were unable to document the completion of this training. In addition, while the Army collects some language proficiency data within its primary personnel system, the Army considers these data unreliable because of weaknesses in its approach to collecting them. To improve the accuracy of information within this system, the Army established a task force in January 2011, which has identified a number of key tasks and is at varying stages of completing its work. The Marine Corps did not document language and culture predeployment training completion in any servicewide training or personnel system and a system has not been designated for this purpose. Further, the Marine Corps had not required marines who completed significant language training to take formal proficiency tests and, therefore, the service did not have language proficiency data for these marines. By not capturing information within service-level training and personnel systems on the training that general purpose forces have completed and the language proficiency gained from training, the Army and Marine Corps do not have the information they need to effectively leverage the language and culture knowledge and skills of these forces when making individual assignments and assessing future operational needs. The Army and Marine Corps have not developed plans to sustain language skills already acquired through predeployment training. The services have made considerable investments to provide some service members with extensive predeployment language training. For example, as of July 2011, over 800 soldiers have completed about 16 weeks of Afghan language training since 2010 at a cost of about $12 million. DOD and service guidance address the need to sustain language skills and the DOD strategic plan for language, regional, and culture skills calls for the services to build on existing language skills for future needs. However, we found that the services had not yet determined which service members require follow-on language training to sustain skills, the amount of training required, or appropriate mechanisms to deliver the training. Although informal follow-on training programs were available to sustain language skills, such as computer-based training, these programs were voluntary. In the absence of formal sustainment training programs to maintain and build upon service members' language skills, the Army and Marine Corps may miss opportunities to capitalize on the investments they have already made to provide predeployment language training for ongoing operations. GAO made recommendations intended to improve the availability of information on training completion and proficiency and help DOD plan for sustainment training. DOD generally agreed with the recommendations, but stated that the definition of significant language training was not intended to describe training for initial skills. However, DOD noted that current guidance does not preclude language proficiency testing at this stage.