In addition, TRADOC has not conducted a personnel mix  assessment to determine the optimum mix of military, Army civilian, and  contractor personnel. TRADOC Personnel Requirements Remain Relatively Steady and Student Workload Is Increasing

TRADOC’s stated personnel requirements for instructors, training  developers, and training support personnel have remained relatively  steady from fiscal years 2005 through 2011, as shown in figure 2. The  figure also shows that over the same time period, TRADOC’s student  workload has increased by about 185,000, or about one-third (399,371 to  584,299), as a result of factors such as increases in the Army’s end  strength to support ongoing operations, which have led to a larger  number of soldiers who need TRADOC training. In his 2010 memorandum, the TRADOC Commander raised concerns  that manning shortfalls were putting TRADOC’s ability to successfully  perform its core competencies and functions at risk. In determining instructor personnel requirements, TRADOC uses an  instructor model based on a formula that relies on assumptions and  inputs. However, we found that the  instructor personnel requirements model has not been updated since  1998, and the assumptions and inputs used in the model may not reflect  changes in how training is currently provided. As a result, since 2009,  TRADOC has used the same estimated number, with minor  modifications, for training developer requirements from one fiscal year to  the next. TRADOC officials recognize that this is not a valid approach and  that they need to use an updated model to determine training developer  requirements. School officials we interviewed stated that their preference would  be to solely use military personnel to provide training because military  personnel have the knowledge and credibility gained from combat  experience to teach and mentor soldiers; however, they recognize that  this is impossible because of constraints on the availability of military  personnel. Quality Assurance Program Does Not Enable TRADOC to Evaluate the Impact of Workforce Management Actions on the Quality of Training

TRADOC has taken various workforce management actions in order to  execute its training mission, but its quality assurance program does not  capture the level of detail needed to evaluate the impact of these steps on  the quality of training provided to soldiers. The Army Audit  Agency in its 2010 study identified these issues and others associated  with the student to instructor ratios. TRADOC’s quality assurance program does not systematically collect the  data needed to evaluate the impact of the type of instructor on the quality  of training. However, when doctrine and  training developers are being used as instructors, developers are not  available to perform their primary task of developing, reviewing, and  updating Army doctrine and curricula for TRADOC courses, which could  affect the quality of training. From  doctrine, curricula are developed that provide a general description of  course content, among other things. School officials stated that they try to update one- third of their curricula each year, but a number of factors, including using  training developers to serve as instructors, have led to a backlog in  updating curricula. Recommendations for Executive Action

To ensure that TRADOC is requesting the appropriate number and mix of  personnel to serve as instructors, training developers, and training  support personnel, we recommend that the Secretary of the Army direct  TRADOC to take the following three actions:    Develop a plan with specific implementation milestones to update its  personnel requirements models for training personnel, including   (1) updating models for instructors and training developers and   (2) developing models for field training and classroom setup  personnel not covered in the training support personnel model, and  adjust requirements accordingly. DOD concurred with our recommendation that the Secretary of the Army  direct TRADOC to establish metrics within its quality assurance program  to enable TRADOC to evaluate how its workforce management actions— such as increasing reliance on contractors—impact the quality of training  and use the data collected from these metrics to make adjustments to  training as needed. 5136), we examined the extent to which U.S.  Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) has (1) identified the  number and type of personnel it needs for instructors, training developers,  and training support personnel to carry out its training mission and   (2) evaluated the impact of its workforce management actions on the  quality of training. To determine the extent to which TRADOC has evaluated the impact of  workforce management actions it has taken to execute its training mission  on the quality of training provided, we met with TRADOC personnel and  operations and training officials, including quality assurance, doctrine, and  training development officials, at TRADOC schools and headquarters.
Why GAO Did This Study

To support ongoing operations, the Army gives priority to providing personnel to its operating forces over its support organizations, including Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC).TRADOC performs various functions, such as developing warfighting doctrine and providing training. To help manage its workforce, TRADOC has taken certain actions, such as relying more on contractors and reassigning other staff to be instructors. In a February 2010 memorandum, the TRADOC Commander stated that because of various factors TRADOC's ability to successfully perform its core competencies and functions was increasingly at risk. House Armed Services Committee report 111-491 directed GAO to evaluate the availability of Army trainers. GAO assessed the extent to which TRADOC has (1) identified the number and type of personnel needed to carry out its training mission and (2) evaluated the impact of its workforce management actions on the quality of training. GAO interviewed key Army and TRADOC officials and reviewed relevant doctrine, guidance, curricula, personnel requirements data, and training survey results.

What GAO Found

TRADOC annually determines its requirements for key training positions, but limitations exist in its underlying approach, such as the use of outdated personnel requirements models. From fiscal years 2005 through 2011, TRADOC's requirements for instructors, training developers, and training support personnel have remained relatively steady while the student workload has increased by about a third. To determine personnel requirements, TRADOC uses various models involving formulas that rely on a range of assumptions and inputs. Army guidance requires Army commands to update models at least every 3 years, but TRADOC has not updated its model for determining the number of instructors it needs since 1998. As a result, assumptions and inputs used in the model may not reflect changes in how training is currently provided, such as the greater use of self-paced computerized learning in place of classroom instruction. Such changes could affect the number of instructors required to teach a course. In addition, TRADOC has used the same number, with minor modifications, for training developer requirements for the last 3 fiscal years. TRADOC officials recognize that using the same number for training developer requirements is not a valid approach and that an updated model is needed; however, they are unsure when they will be able to update the model. Lastly, TRADOC has not conducted an assessment to determine the optimum mix of military, Army civilian, and contractor personnel to use to execute its training mission. Without the benefit of models that are updated to more closely reflect current training conditions and without conducting a mix analysis, TRADOC does not have a sound basis for accurately identifying the number and types of personnel needed for key training personnel and making the most cost-effective use of training resources. TRADOC has taken various workforce management actions in order to execute its training mission, but its quality assurance program does not collect certain information needed to evaluate the impact of these actions on the quality of training. Among other things, TRADOC has increased the number of students that an instructor teaches, relied on more contractors as instructors, and reassigned doctrine and training developers to serve as instructors. Through surveys and other tools, TRADOC evaluates factors such as students' knowledge of course materials and whether an instructor is teaching from the curriculum, but it does not systematically collect the data needed to evaluate the impact of changing the student to instructor ratio or the type of instructor on the quality of training. TRADOC officials expressed mixed views about the impact of using contractors on the quality of training. Some believed that more military trainers are needed because these personnel have the knowledge and credibility gained from combat experience to teach soldiers. While others stated that contractors provide the same quality of training as military personnel. GAO noted that TRADOC's use of doctrine and training developers to serve as instructors is among the factors that have led to a backlog in updating doctrine and curricula, which could affect the quality of training.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that TRADOC establish a plan to (1) update its personnel requirements models, doctrine, and curricula; (2) complete a personnel mix assessment; and (3) establish metrics to evaluate its workforce management actions. DOD concurred with the recommendations.