They report  directly to the superintendent of their respective service academies, in  accordance with the chain of command for each service. Preparatory School Missions Are Not Clearly Defined

The three preparatory schools’ current mission statements do not clearly  define the purpose for which the schools are being used by their  respective service academies. Without a clear mission statement, the  organization cannot establish goals that fully reflect the organization’s  intended purpose. However, neither DOD nor the service academies have required the  preparatory schools to align their mission statements to reflect DOD’s  guidance and the service academies’ expectations. Even though the mission statements are not explicit about the schools’  intended purpose, data on the number of students belonging to target  groups who enter the preparatory schools and then enter the service  academies indicate that, in practice, the schools are giving primary  consideration for enrollment to those target groups identified by the DOD  directive and the service academies—namely, enlisted personnel,  minorities, recruited athletes, and women—and are primarily preparing  those student groups for admission to the service academies. Preparatory Schools Maintain Performance Data, but Mission Effectiveness Is Difficult to Evaluate

It is difficult to evaluate how effective the preparatory schools have been  in accomplishing their missions because the service academies have not  established performance goals for their preparatory schools. Without specific  performance goals, there is no objective yardstick against which to gauge  preparatory school effectiveness, as would be consistent with the  principle of best practices for ensuring optimal return on investment. DOD Lacks a Complete Framework to Facilitate More Effective Oversight of the Preparatory Schools

The effectiveness of DOD, military service, and service academy oversight  is limited because the existing oversight framework for assessing  preparatory school performance does not include, among other things,  performance goals and mission statements—as discussed in previous  sections of this report—and objective measures against which to assess  performance. Recommendations for Executive Action

We recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Under Secretary  of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, in concert with the service  headquarters and service academies, to    clarify the preparatory schools’ mission statements by aligning these  statements with the department’s guidance and the academies’  expectations, which target student groups for primary enrollment  consideration;    establish quantified performance goals and measures, linked with the  schools’ mission statements; and    enhance the existing oversight framework by using quantified  performance goals and measures to objectively evaluate the  performance of the preparatory schools. Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland; the U.S. Air Force Academy  Preparatory School, Colorado Springs, Colorado; the U.S. Military  Academy Preparatory School, Fort Monmouth, New Jersey; and the U.S.
Why GAO Did This Study

Each year, the U.S. Air Force Academy, the U.S. Military Academy, and the U.S. Naval Academy combined spend tens of millions of dollars to operate preparatory schools that provide an alternative avenue for about 700 students annually to gain admission to the service academies. Service academy officials screen all applicants to identify those who they believe could succeed at the academies but who would benefit from more preparation. The Department of Defense (DOD) pays the full cost of providing this preparation. GAO was asked to review the three service academy preparatory schools, and this report specifically assesses (1) the adequacy of their current mission statements, (2) the effectiveness of these schools in accomplishing their missions, and (3) the effectiveness of DOD oversight of these schools.

What GAO Found

The three service academy preparatory schools' current mission statements do not clearly articulate the purpose for which the schools are being used by their respective service academies. In accordance with DOD guidance and the service academies' expectations, the preparatory schools give primary consideration for enrollment to enlisted personnel, minorities, women, and recruited athletes. However, the preparatory school mission statements are not clearly aligned with DOD guidance and the academies' expectations. This is a continuing problem, which GAO first reported in 1992. Without clear mission statements, the service academies and their respective preparatory schools cannot establish goals that fully reflect the preparatory schools' intended purpose. It is difficult to evaluate how effective the preparatory schools have been in accomplishing their missions because the service academies have not established performance goals for the preparatory schools. Without specific performance goals, there is no objective yardstick against which to gauge preparatory school effectiveness, as would be consistent with the principle of best practices for ensuring optimal return on investment. The effectiveness of DOD, military service, and service academy oversight is limited because the existing oversight framework for assessing preparatory school performance does not include performance goals and measures against which to objectively assess performance. DOD and the services receive annual reports from the academies on preparatory school performance. Without stated performance goals and measures, however, the reports do not offer DOD, the services, or the service academies as good an insight into the preparatory schools' performance and their return on investment as they could.