Oversight of the Academies

Oversight of the academies is the responsibility of three principal  organizations: OUSD/P&R, the service headquarters, and the board of  visitors of each academy. DOD Lacks a Complete Framework for Oversight of the Academies

The OUSD/P&R, the services, and the academies’ boards of visitors  conduct many oversight activities, but they lack a complete oversight  framework. The service headquarters use a number of mechanisms to  oversee academy performance. The reports provide OUSD/P&R and the services with information on  current and past performance for academy operations, but apart from  officer accession goals, neither OUSD/P&R nor the services have specific  stated performance goals against which to compare the information  provided in the assessment reports, thus they do not have an explicit basis  for judging the adequacy of their performance. Whole Person Approach Allows Academies Flexibility to Admit Students with a Range of Qualifications

The academies do not grant waivers from academic criteria but do not  have absolute minimum scores for admission. Under the whole person  approach, the academies can admit some applicants whose academic  scores are lower than might normally be competitive for admission, but  who in their totality (academics, physical aptitude, and leadership  potential) are deemed an acceptable risk and qualified to attend an  academy. Academy data show  that the academic quality of the applicants has remained high over the past  4 years, and the competitive ranges for academic scores used by the  academies have remained the same or have increased during this time. No Significant Differences in Admissions and Academy Performance between Various Groups of Students

In our review of the academy classes that started in 1998 (class of 2002),  we found differences among various groups of students in their  admissions scores and similar differences in their performance while at  the academies, but the differences were not significant in magnitude. We also found differences in performance after admission to the  academies between selected groups and the class as a whole. Some groups—such as minorities, preparatory school graduates, recruited  athletes, and students in the lower 30 percent of their class in terms of  academic admissions scores—performed at lower levels on average in all  categories than the class as a whole, but these differences varied between  academies and by category and were not sizable. Key contributors are listed in  appendix V.

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

To assess the extent to which DOD oversees the service academies’  operations and performance, we interviewed officials at the Office of the  Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness; the Army, Navy,  and Air Force headquarters; and the U.S. Military, U.S. In addition, we assessed the relationship between admissions scores and  performance at the academies by using the whole person admission score  and the academic component of the admissions score. DOD Service Academies: Status Report on Reviews of Student  Treatment. Service Academies: Historical Proportion of New Officers During  Benchmark Periods.
Why GAO Did This Study

Graduates of the service academies operated by the Army, Navy, and Air Force currently make up approximately 18 percent of the officer corps for the nation's armed services. The academies represent the military's most expensive source of new officers. The Department of Defense (DOD) pays the full cost of a student's 4-year education at the academies; and the related cost has increased over the past 4 years. Admission to the academies is highly competitive. The academies use a "whole person" method to make admission decisions. Recent studies by the Air Force raised questions about possible adverse effects of whole person admissions policies on student quality. GAO was asked to review all three service academies and specifically address the extent to which (1) DOD oversees the service academies, (2) applicants are granted waivers of academic standards, and (3) various groups of students differ in admissions scores and academy performance.

What GAO Found

The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (OUSD/P&R), the services, and the academies' boards of visitors conduct considerable oversight of the academies' operations and performance, but they lack a complete oversight framework. A complete oversight framework includes performance goals and measures against which the academies' performance could be better assessed. OUSD/P&R and the services use the number and type of commissioned officers as the primary measure of academy performance. OUSD/P&R requires and receives reports on academy performance from the services. While data submitted in these reports provide perspective on current performance compared with past performance, without stated performance goals and measures, these reports do not offer OUSD/P&R or the services as good an insight into the academies performance as they could. Additionally, though the academy boards of visitors serve as an external oversight mechanism to focus attention on a wide range of issues, they also do not assess the academies' performance against established performance goals and measures. The academies do not grant waivers from academic criteria or have absolute minimum scores for admission. However, under the whole person approach, the academies can admit some applicants whose academic scores are lower than might normally be competitive for admission, but who in their totality (academics, physical aptitude, and leadership) are evaluated by academy officials as being capable of succeeding at the academy. In our review of the academy classes that started in 1998 (class of 2002), we found that despite differences among various groups of students in their admissions scores and similar differences in their performance while at the academies, the differences in performance were not sizable. Some groups, such as females, performed better in some categories than the class as a whole and worse in others. Some groups (minorities, preparatory school graduates, recruited athletes, and students in the lower 30 percent of their class in terms of academic admissions scores) performed at lower levels on average in all categories than the class as a whole.