Army and Marine Corps Developed Language and Culture Strategies, but Did Not Include Some Key Elements and Departmentwide Efforts to Establish a Planning Process Are Incomplete

Our prior work shows that establishing priorities and results-oriented  performance metrics can help federal agencies target training investments  and assess the contributions that training programs make toward  achieving strategic program goals and objectives. We found that the Army and Marine Corps had not  conducted comprehensive analyses to prioritize language and culture  training investments and assign responsibilities for program performance  and departmentwide efforts to establish a planning process for language  and culture capabilities were not yet complete. The Army and Marine Corps Developed Broad Goals and Objectives within Language and Culture Strategies and Identified Some Training Programs and Activities

The Army and Marine Corps developed broad service-specific goals and  objectives for language and culture training within their respective  language and culture strategies and identified some key training programs  and activities. In  February 2011, DOD published the Department of Defense Strategic Plan  for Language Skills, Regional Expertise, and Cultural Capabilities (2011- 2016). Without a clearly defined planning process that includes internal  mechanisms, such as procedures and milestones, and a validated set of  language and culture capability requirements, the department does not  have the tools it needs to set strategic direction for language and culture  training efforts, fully align departmentwide efforts to develop plans and  budget requests that reflect its priorities, and measure progress in  implementing various initiatives. U.S. Central Command Did Not Synchronize Varying Language and Culture Training Requirements for Army and Marine Corps General Purpose Forces

DOD components identified language and culture training requirements  for Army and Marine Corps general purpose forces that will deploy to the  U.S. Central Command area of responsibility, but these requirements  varied among and within DOD components. We surveyed 15 documents issued since June 2008 that address language  and culture predeployment training requirements. For example, in October 2010, U.S. Additionally, just as the focus of training has varied,  the type and duration of training has varied as well. For example, in July  2010, the Army required that all forces deploying to either Afghanistan or  Iraq complete a 4- to 6-hour online training program for language and  culture. In September 2010, the Marine Corps directed that all ground units  assigned to the I Marine Expeditionary Force preparing for Afghanistan  deployment complete a 2-day culture course and receive an introduction  to software used for self-paced study. During the course of our review,  Army and Marine Corps officials noted that language and culture  predeployment training requirements changed constantly, which led to  some confusion over the training that was needed to meet operational  needs and that considerable time and resources were spent adjusting  training programs. Without a comprehensive  process, U.S. Central Command will not have a mechanism to identify and  synchronize training for current and future operations, which may result in  deploying forces that receive training that is inconsistent and may not  meet operational needs. U.S. Central Command has taken some steps to  consolidate training requirements, but the command has not yet  established a comprehensive, analytically based process for identifying  and synchronizing predeployment training requirements. DOD concurred with our recommendation that the Secretary of Defense  direct the Commander of U.S. Central Command to establish a  comprehensive, analytically based process to (1) identify and approve  predeployment training requirements that includes a description of the  analysis to be conducted prior to approving the requirements and (2)  coordinate with key stakeholders, such as the military services and  subordinate commands to ensure that requirements are synchronized  among and within DOD components and with departmentwide guidance,  and solicit feedback on service training approaches in meeting operational  needs. To evaluate the extent to which the Army and Marine Corps had  developed language and culture strategies with key elements, such as  goals, funding priorities, and metrics to guide training approaches and  investments that were aligned with departmentwide planning efforts, we  focused on the Army’s and Marine Corps’ general purpose forces. We reviewed these documents in the context of our  prior work, Department of Defense (DOD) budget documents, and service  guidance to determine the extent to which the Army and Marine Corps  were developing strategies that identified goals and objectives, training  programs and priorities, resource requirements, and approaches for  measuring progress, including results-oriented performance metrics.We  also reviewed funding data for fiscal years 2009 through 2012 provided by  the Army’s Training and Doctrine Command and the Marine Corps’ Center  for the Advanced Operational Culture Learning that are associated with  the implementation of the Army’s and Marine Corps’ respective language  and culture strategies. DoD Response:  Concur. DoD Response:  Concur.
Why GAO Did This Study

Today, and in the foreseeable future, military operations require U.S. personnel, in particular Army and Marine Corps ground forces, to communicate and interact with multinational partners and local populations. The committee report accompanying a proposed bill for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 directed GAO to review several issues related to language and culture training for Army and Marine Corps general purpose forces. For this report, GAO evaluated (1) the extent to which the Army and Marine Corps had developed strategies with elements such as goals, funding priorities, and metrics to guide training approaches and investments that were aligned with Department of Defense (DOD) planning efforts and (2) DOD's approach for identifying training requirements for Army and Marine Corps forces that will deploy to the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility. To do so, GAO analyzed Army and Marine Corps strategies and training requirements and interviewed cognizant officials.

What GAO Found

The Army and Marine Corps developed service-specific language and culture strategies, but did not include some key elements to guide their training approaches and investments, and DOD-wide efforts to establish a planning process that could better align service training approaches are incomplete. The Army and Marine Corps developed broad goals and objectives within their strategies and identified some training programs and activities tied to these goals. However, the services did not always identify priorities and the investments needed to implement the training or a set of results-oriented performance metrics to assess the contributions that training programs have made collectively, which GAO and DOD have recognized can help ensure training investments are making progress toward achieving program goals and objectives. GAO found that the Army and Marine Corps did not complete underlying analyses and assign responsibilities for program performance prior to designing and implementing their strategies and associated training programs. DOD has taken steps to develop a strategic planning process to align service training approaches. For example, in February 2011, DOD published a strategic plan for language skills and cultural capabilities that outlines a broad departmentwide planning process. However, DOD has not yet set up internal mechanisms, such as procedures and milestones, by which it can reach consensus with the military services on priorities and investments. Without a clearly defined planning process, DOD does not have the tools it needs to set strategic direction for language and culture training efforts, fully align departmentwide efforts to develop plans and budget requests that reflect its priorities, and measure progress in implementing various initiatives. DOD components identified varying language and culture training requirements for Army and Marine Corps general purpose forces that will deploy to the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility, but the Command did not use a comprehensive process to synchronize these requirements. GAO surveyed 15 documents issued since June 2008 and found several variances with respect to the language to be trained and the type and duration of training. For example, in July 2010 the Army required that all forces deploying to either Afghanistan or Iraq complete a 4- to 6-hour online training program for language and culture. In September 2010, a senior Marine Corps commander directed that ground units preparing for Afghanistan deployments complete a 2-day culture course. Army and Marine Corps officials noted that training requirements changed constantly and this led to some confusion in developing training programs as well as considerable time and resources that were spent adjusting training. GAO found that contrary to DOD guidance, U.S. Central Command had not yet established a comprehensive process to approve training requirements and coordinate them with key stakeholders to ensure alignment with DOD guidance and obtain feedback on service training approaches. Without a comprehensive process, U.S. Central Command will not have a mechanism to identify and synchronize training for current and future operations, which may result in deploying forces that receive training that is inconsistent and may not meet operational needs.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that the Army and Marine Corps assign responsibilities for program performance, and identify training investments and metrics; DOD establish a defined planning process with internal mechanisms, such as procedures and milestones, to align training efforts; and U.S. Central Command establish a process to identify and synchronize training requirements. DOD generally agreed with the recommendations.