FINAL - USAFA Inspection Report - Redacted (2), 9 March 2015

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

UNITED STATES AIR FORCE ACADEMY

Athletic Department USAF Academy, CO 80840

18 Aug 2014 - 22 Sep 2014

This report may be protected from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. Do not release or publish, in whole or in part, outside official DOD channels without express approval of the Director, SAF/IGI.


Commander's Inspection Program Report


TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................................................................... 2 DEFINITIONS ................................................................................................................................................................... 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................................. 5 INSPECTION SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................. 7

Table: Athletic Department Unit Grade / Aggregate Totals .......................................................................................... 7 CCIP INSPECTION RESULTS ......................................................................................................................................... 9

ATHLETIC DEPARTMENT ........................................................................................................................................... 9 MANAGING RESOURCES ........................................................................................................................................... 9 Adequacy ...................................................................................................................................................................... 9 Manpower ..................................................................................................................................................................... 9 Funds ............................................................................................................................................................................ 9 Facilities ........................................................................................................................................................................ 9 Stewardship .................................................................................................................................................................. 9 Manpower ..................................................................................................................................................................... 9 Funds .......................................................................................................................................................................... 12 Equipment ................................................................................................................................................................... 12 Facilities and Environment .......................................................................................................................................... 13 Guidance ..................................................................................................................................................................... 13 Airmen's Time ............................................................................................................................................................. 14 LEADING PEOPLE ..................................................................................................................................................... 14 Communication ........................................................................................................................................................... 14 Discipline ..................................................................................................................................................................... 14 Compliance ................................................................................................................................................................. 14 Accountability .............................................................................................................................................................. 15 Attention to Detail ........................................................................................................................................................ 17 Training ....................................................................................................................................................................... 19 Individual ..................................................................................................................................................................... 19 Development ............................................................................................................................................................... 20 Professional ................................................................................................................................................................ 20 Quality of Life Engagement ........................................................................................................................................ 20 Unit Morale .................................................................................................................................................................. 21 IMPROVING THE UNIT .............................................................................................................................................. 21 Strategic Alignment ..................................................................................................................................................... 21 Strategic Planning ....................................................................................................................................................... 21 Performance Metrics ................................................................................................................................................... 22 Process Operations ..................................................................................................................................................... 24 Key Work Processes .................................................................................................................................................. 24 Risk Management ....................................................................................................................................................... 25 Commitment to Continuous Improvement .................................................................................................................. 25 Data-Driven Decision .................................................................................................................................................. 26 Decision Processes..................................................................................................................................................... 27 EXECUTING THE MISSION ...................................................................................................................................... 27 Primary Mission .......................................................................................................................................................... 27 Right Quality ............................................................................................................................................................... 28

REPLY INSTRUCTIONS ................................................................................................................................................ 29 SUPERIOR PERFORMERS ........................................................................................................................................... 30 TEAM COMPOSITION .................................................................................................................................................... 31 DISTRIBUTION LIST ...................................................................................................................................................... 32 KEY PERSONNEL .......................................................................................................................................................... 33 ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................................................................... 34


FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY DRU:CCIP.USAFA.34127 2 of 34


DEFINITIONS

This inspection was graded IAW AFI 90-201 and applicable governing guidance.

5 Tier (CCIP) Item Level grading scale definitions

Outstanding: Given for a CCIP score between 85 and 100, this rating indicates the Wing meets/exceeds the criteria for a HIGHLY EFFECTIVE rating AND most or all of the following are consistently true: Mission activities, programs and processes are executed in an increasingly cost-effective manner; Results of long-term commitment to continuous process improvement are evident; Leaders' decisions and priorities demonstrate genuine care for their Airmen; Leaders are engaged to help Airmen achieve their own goals as well as the unit's goals; Widespread evidence of high proficiency, unit pride and cohesion; Programs and processes are institutionalized and produce highly reliable results; Programs are nearly deficiency-free, and efforts to benchmark and share lessons learned with other Wings are evident; Effective Management Systems are in place and are used to maximum effectiveness at all levels.

Highly Effective: Given for a CCIP score greater than 65 and less than or equal to 85, this rating indicates the Wing exceeds the criteria for an EFFECTIVE rating AND most or all of the following are consistently true: Mission activities, programs and processes are executed in a highly effective and efficient manner; personnel demonstrate high proficiency; CCIP is institutionalized, used to measure and report improvements in all 4 MGAs, and provide actionable feedback to HHQ on policy, guidance and resource adequacy; Continuous process improvement efforts are widespread and have improved efficiency; Most programs and processes are measured and repeatable, and produce reliable results; Risk-based criteria are habitually applied when allocating resources and making decisions; Programs have very few deficiencies and necessary waivers are in effect; Deliberate efforts to train, communicate, and engage Airmen are evident; Effective processes are in place to improve Airmen's quality of work and home life; Management Systems are mature and continuous improvement crosses across multiple programs.

Effective: Given for a CCIP score greater than 35 and less than or equal to 65, this rating indicates most or all of the following are generally true: Requirements are met in all mission areas (Primary, AEF, Mission Assurance C2) and personnel are proficient; CCIP provides the command chain an accurate, adequate and relevant picture of unit performance; Resources are managed in an effective and compliant manner; Leaders treat Airmen with respect and provide a healthy and safe work environment; Continuous process improvement efforts are evident; Critical programs and processes are measured and repeatable; Risk-based criteria are often considered when allocating resources and making decisions; Programs have few significant deficiencies and many necessary waivers are in effect; Management Systems are present and continuous improvement occurs.

Marginally Effective: Given for a CCIP score greater than 15 and less than or equal to 35, this rating indicates the Wing




does not meet the criteria for an EFFECTIVE rating, and some or all of the following are consistently true: Requirements are met in some but not all mission areas (Primary, AEF, Mission Assurance C2); Unit personnel meet minimum performance criteria but with limited proficiency; CCIP provides the command chain an accurate, though limited, picture of unit performance; Some key processes and activities are not carried out in a competent or compliant manner, or are personality-dependent; Little to no evidence exists of continuous process improvement efforts; Resources and programs are not well managed; Risk and resource scarcity are not deliberately considered in decision-making processes; Deficiencies exist that significantly increase risk to Airmen, the mission or the Air Force; Management systems have some elements by are not working in a cohesive process.

Ineffective: Given for a CCIP score between 0 and 15, this rating indicates the Wing does not meet all of the criteria for an EFFECTIVE rating, and some or all of the following are consistently true: Wing does not demonstrate ability to meet mission requirements; Evidence exists of systemic non-compliance or widespread disregard for prescribed procedures; The number and severity of deficiencies preclude or seriously limit mission accomplishment; CCIP does not provide an accurate, adequate or relevant picture of unit performance; Leaders do not treat Airmen with respect or do not provide a healthy and safe work environment; Resources and programs are grossly mismanaged; Management systems are not evident.

BEST PRACTICES: Validated superior methods or innovative practices that contribute to improved performance.

DEFICIENCIES: A validated deficiency assessed as CRITICAL, Significant, or Minor.

a. CRITICAL: Any deficiency that results or could result in widespread mission impact or failure.

b. Significant: Any deficiency that has or could have significant mission impact.

c. Minor: Any deficiency that is procedurally incorrect but has only modest mission impact.

RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENT AREA (RIA): An identified process, product, or capability which could be improved by a suggested course of action.

STRENGTHS: An area that far exceeds compliance directives or mission requirements and/or expectations.

SUPERIOR PERFORMERS/TEAMS: An organized group or dedicated individual whose knowledge, perseverance, and professionalism contributed greatly to the unit's compliance with directives and high state of mission success.




EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

06 October 2014

MEMORANDUM FOR USAFA/AD USAFA/CV USAFA/CC

FROM: USAFA/IG

SUBJECT: Athletic Department Inspection Results

HQ USAFA/IG completed a vertical unit inspection of the Athletic Department (AD) in

accordance with AFI 90-201, The Air Force Inspection System, 02 Aug 2013 incorporating Change 1, 10 Mar 2014. The purpose of the inspection was to provide the Superintendent an independent assessment of the effectiveness, compliance, discipline and resources of the department. The Superintendent directed our inspectors to focus on accountability, resources and culture/climate. The inspection occurred from 18 Aug 22 Sep 2014.

The overall grade for this inspection was EFFECTIVE which indicates the unit performed its

mission effectively and efficiently. Inspectors observed 5 Significant and 14 Minor deficiencies. Furthermore, inspectors observed 2 Superior Performers, 5 program Strengths and 17 Recommended Improvement Areas (RIAs). Grades and background information for each major graded area (MGA) are listed below:

Managing Resources: EFFECTIVE

Adequacy of funds, equipment and facilities was deemed sufficient to accomplish the mission. AD leadership decided to apply headquarters-directed fiscal reductions to manpower across the department rather than eliminate intercollegiate sports programs. Inspection results suggest the consequences of that decision are being felt in intercollegiate programs, physical education, logistical support and the amount of employee work time. Some teams whose appropriated funded assistant coach positions were eliminated are exploring avenues to contract coaches. AD operating instructions are out-of-date and need revisions given the establishment of the Air Force Academy Athletic Corporation. The department has an extremely effective government purchase card program especially given the thousands of transactions per year.

Leading People: MARGINALLY EFFECTIVE

While pride in the AD mission remains very high, some areas require attention. There was no evidence of internally-directed formal investigations despite several examples of alleged misconduct. This resulted in a negative perception of a lack of accountability for permanent party. The civilian personnel folders' documentation suffered from a lack of attention to detail. Completion of Air Force-mandated training courses needs to improve. Unit morale has seriously suffered from various external and internal factors. Responses suggest members lost a sense of belonging, shared values, trust and cooperation. The NCAA compliance section was a notable strength. NCAA standards are communicated and understood, consistently applied and non-selectively enforced and documented.

(b)(5)

(b)(5)

(b)(5)

(b)(5)




Improving the Unit: EFFECTIVE AD leadership and employees rely on personalities and relationships to effectively

accomplish the mission rather than up-to-date, codified operating guidelines for its key processes: personnel (recruiting, permanent party), operations (intercollegiate athletics, physical education, intramurals, fitness testing), logistics (facilities, equipment, events, transportation, security, support) and finances. AD possesses a strategic plan with metrics but should operationalize the plan into daily processes. Data should be collected and reviewed for decision-making in all rather than some key processes. Additionally, leadership should incentivize members to continually improve its processes and use Air Force Smart Operations for the 21st Century to help solve its biggest challenges. The department's effective and efficient use of military air transportation is noteworthy and the money saved is redistributed to non-forecasted emerging requirements.

Executing the Mission: HIGHLY EFFECTIVE

AD is excellent at executing its mission. All cadets are afforded a competitive experience in a physically demanding environment. Department employees exceptionally plan, orchestrate and execute hundreds of annual events. Intercollegiate coaches are continuously considering cadets' time, especially when balancing the desire to train for competitions while being appreciative of the other rigorous demands of the Academy (academics, military and leadership training). The intramural program is a department strength. This program is principally led and executed by cadets and offers both leadership opportunities and physical competitions on a minimum budget.

Digitally signed by KUENZLI.

KUENZLI.DAVID. DAVID.PAUL.1076244380 DN: c=US, o=U.S. Government,

PAUL.10762443 80

ou=DoD, ou=PKI, ou=USAF, cn=KUENZLI.DAVID. PAUL.1076244380 Date: 2014.10.06 16:19:11 -06'00'

DAVID P. KUENZLI, Col, USAF US Air Force Academy Inspector General

(b)(5)

(b)(5)

(b)(5)

(b)(5)

(b)(6)




INSPECTION SUMMARY

Table: Athletic Department Unit Grade / Aggregate Totals

Org Abbrev

Inspected Organization

Unit Grade

Deficiencies Strengths

RIAs Severity HHQ/SA Repeat PFW&A Unit Identified Critical Significant Minor SII CII

AD Athletic Department Effective 0 5 14 0 0 3 0 0 0 5 17

Table: Athletic Department Unit Item Grades / Summary Table

Index

SII /

CII

Item

Grade

Deficiencies

Strengths

RIAs

Severity HHQ/SA Repeat PFW&A Unit Identified

Critical Significant Minor SII CII

1 Commander's

Inspection Program (CCIP)

Not Graded

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1.1 Managing Resources Effective 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.1.1 Adequacy Not Graded 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.1.1.1 Manpower Effective 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.1.1.2 Funds Effective 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.1.1.4 Facilities Highly Effective 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

1.1.2 Stewardship Not Graded 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.1.2.1 Manpower Marginally Effective 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2

1.1.2.2 Funds Effective 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 1.1.2.3 Equipment Effective 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

1.1.2.4 Facilities and Environment Not Graded 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.1.2.5 Guidance Marginally Effective 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

1.1.2.6 Airmen's Time Marginally Effective 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.2 Leading People Marginally Effective 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.2.1 Communication Effective 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.2.2 Discipline Not Graded 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.2.2.1 Compliance Effective 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

1.2.2.3 Accountability Marginally Effective 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

1.2.2.5 Attention to Detail Marginally Effective 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

1.2.3 Training Marginally Effective 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.2.3.1 Individual Not Graded 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1.2.4 Development Not Graded 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.2.4.1 Professional Effective 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

(b)(5)

(b)(5) (b)(5)




Index

SII /

CII

Item

Grade

Defic

iencies

Strengths

RIAs

Severity HHQ/SA Repeat PFW&A Unit Identified

Critical Significant Minor SII CII 1.2.5 Quality of Life Engagement Not Graded 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.2.5.2 Unit Morale Marginally Effective 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.3 Improving the Unit Effective 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.3.1 Strategic Alignment Effective 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.3.1.2 Strategic Planning Not Graded 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

1.3.1.3 Performance Metrics Not Graded 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

1.3.2 Process Operations Not Graded 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.3.2.1 Key Work Processes Effective 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2

1.3.2.2 Risk Management Not Graded 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1.3.2.3

Commitment to Continuous

Improvement

Not Graded

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1.3.4 Data-Driven Decision Effective 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

1.3.4.2 Decision Processes Not Graded 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.4 Executing the Mission Highly Effective 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.4.1 Primary Mission Highly Effective 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.4.1.2 Right Quality Not Graded 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Totals: 0 5 14 0 0 3 0 0 0 5 17

(b)(5) (b)(5)




CCIP INSPECTION RESULTS

ATHLETIC DEPARTMENT EFFECTIVE

MANAGING RESOURCES EFFECTIVE

Adequacy

Manpower Effective Comments:

DoD-directed Civilian Workforce Review reductions were laid in for USAFA beginning in FY16 thru FY18. Hence, mission elements were tasked to develop and identify position level reduction options.

Funds Effective Comments:

Athletic Department members stated they had sufficient funds to execute the mission. Many members voiced their displeasure with federal funding declines and the negative personal and morale impacts of sequestration and furloughs.

Facilities Highly Effective Strengths:

The Athletic Department benefits from some of the best athletic facilities in the Mountain West Conference. The department is completing an $85 million renovation of the Cadet Gym.

Stewardship

Manpower Marginally Effective Comments:

AD leadership reviewed several options to cut manpower to meet anticipated DoD budget reductions. The first option was to cut one or more intercollegiate sport programs, thereby saving money in both manpower and operating costs. The second option was to keep all 27 intercollegiate programs but cut 30 manpower positions from across the department. AD leadership chose the latter and cut the positions of 11 coaches, 8 fitness/trainer staff, 6 support staff and 5 admin staff. Some of these positions were vacant. This decision resulted in several consequences. First, the Physical Education (PE) department lost 13 instructors so the course load was distributed among the remaining faculty/coaches. As a side note, none of the AFAAC-contracted coaches teach PE. Second, AD decided to cut some of the support staff for the 27 teams. So while the department expected to continue to field 27 programs, the positions and people expected to support the planning and execution of those programs were eliminated. None of the revenue-generating sports programs suffered

(b)(5)

(b)(5)

(b)(5)

(b)(5)

(b)(5)




manpower cuts.

The 2013 UCA, 2014 Faculty Survey, as well as individual interviews prior to the inspection suggested a nepotistic hiring practice within the Athletic Department. Inspectors reviewed the qualifications of hired employees with the civilian position minimum requirements and determined AD had hired qualified candidates. However, the minimum requirements for an intercollegiate coach are not based upon coaching experiences and documented skills, rather on the ability to teach physical education. These minimal qualification requirements give wide latitude in who is selected for a position. Some interviewees expressed displeasure when employees were hired with apparent lower coaching qualifications than other applicants. However, other interviewees explained that the ability to develop cadet-athletes within the constraints of the Academy environment were more important than a traditional NCAA Division I coaching resume.

Deficiencies:

F.34127.1692303: Minor The Athletic Department wrote guidance that either contradicts or is less restrictive than HHQ guidance. Specifically, guidance published in ADOI 36-801 and the USAFA Curriculum Handbook contradicts with USAFAI 36-802.

- ADOI 36-801 and the Curriculum Handbook allowed faculty members not to teach PE classes as stated in their job description. A review of AD internal records revealed that 17 AD faculty members did not teach a PE class, which is stated in their job position description. The records review consisted of assigned faculty staff (AD-21 thru AD-24) that taught PE classes the prior year (Aug 13 thru Sep 14) to determine if assigned civilian faculty members were fulfilling the teaching requirement of their position descriptions as required in USAFAI 36-802. Faculty coaches assigned to the 5 major sports (Football, Men's/Women's Basketball, Women's Volleyball, and Ice Hockey) are not expected to teach PE as their coaching duties fulfill that requirement. However, 10 FSS/FSMC (Civilian Personnel Office) indicates all faculty coaches, regardless of sport, are required to teach PE as a condition of their appointment in the USAFA Faculty Program.

Reference: Unit Manpower Document (UMD), Personnel System Records (military, civilian, and NAF), PE Instruction records, AFI 38-201, USAFAI 36-802 & AFI 33-360 para 2.11.5.1.

F.34127.1685353: Minor

Athletic Department Director failed to match the operating organizational structure to the formally approved organizational structure. The standup of the Air Force Academy Athletic Corporation and recently programmed manpower reductions have created a need to reorganize which AD has done via the internal creation of office symbols and personnel

(b)(5)

(b)(5)

(b)(5)

(b)(5)




details. USAFA/A1M has been presented draft proposed organization charts and has provided necessary advice and guidance. However, AD has not submitted their formal Organization Change Request to USAFA/A1M for final review, USAFA/CC coordination, and transmittal to AF/A1M for approval. Once approved by HAF, USAFA/A1M will update the manpower system which will in turn update the various personnel systems, enhancing personnel accountability as well as improving various military and civilian hiring processes.

Reference: UMD, & AFI 38-101

F.34127.1692320: Minor

Recommend that duty titles be aligned to match the intent and purpose of how they have been allocated. Additionally, personnel should be located in their actual work centers with which they work. Examples are as follows:

- Positions 000251370B (Pasieta) and 000244590B (Senn) should be realigned to the work centers where they actually work by submitting a manpower change request to USAFA/A1M.

- Position 000151890B (Vasta) appears to be utilized as an executive officer versus the intended purpose of a strength and conditioning instructor. Execs are only authorized at the Wing level, which AD is similar to in comparison, however AD does have an Exec position which is now filled by Capt Sturm. AD should eliminate the responsibility from Capt Vasta, return the member fully to strength and conditioning duties, and work with USAFA/CSS to change his duty title accordingly.

Reference: AD Unit Manpower Document (UMD), Personnel System Records (military, civilian, and NAF), AFAAC Cooperative Agreement, AFI 38-201, USAFAI 36-802

Recommended Improvement Areas:

Recommend codifying the roles and responsibilities of the Vice Athletic Director. Interview responses suggest this position does not have a clear role in the department. Of note, military members were more willing to coordinate information/actions/decisions with the Vice than the civilian members.

Recommend that the AD organizational structure be stabilized to support the full implementation of the AD strategy by aligning senior leadership positions with key AD processes. Currently, 4 senior leaders oversee "operations" while the head of communications oversees "support." This results in a lack of advocacy for those employees and sections that support the "operations" of intercollegiate athletics, physical education, intramurals and fitness testing. One possible organizational structure could be to parallel a typical military staff: Personnel, Operations & Plans, Logistics & Facilities and Budgeting. Additionally, a senior administrator over logistics, who is on the same level as the 10

(b)(5)

(b)(5)

(b)(5)

(b)(6) (b)(6)

(b)(6)

(b)(6)

(b)(6)




MSG/CC, would help facilitate support services from 10 ABW.

Funds Effective Comments:

Team travel processes were reviewed. It was determined from the 3 team travel expense forms and Citibank statements provided at the review that it is unclear that a complete reconciliation is occurring IAW USAFAI65-103. During this review, the inspectors found that there is not a clear audit trail between the Intercollegiate Post-Trip Team Travel Expense Form and the monthly Citibank statement. There were minor discrepancies noted: illegible receipts, missing receipts, more meals paid for than number of travelers on expense form (Men's Basketball New Mexico); possible duplicate charge on Citi Bank statement payment due date 5 Jun 14 (Hy Vee $197.67) only one receipt in package (Men's Baseball South Dakota).

Strengths:

Government Purchase Card (GPC) program has 9 cardholders that executed 1151 credit card transactions totaling $645,984.25 during Oct 2013 through Aug 2014. 10 CONS GPC office inspects unit managing accounts for compliance annually. A review of the 9 managing accounts demonstrated 1 discrepancy identified through their inspection process in April and May of 2014.


Recommend that the AFAAA Funds Custodian ensures a better accountability of funds. A desk drawer is not considered an approved storage container per AFI 31-101.

Recommend that to ensure a well-defined audit trail that a manifest is provided to validate/verify the accompanied blanket travel roster. Also, it is recommended that birthdates are removed on blanket travel orders as it is only required for dependent travel per JTR Chap. 5

Recommend 10 CONS train AD staff on authorized vs. unauthorized commitments. Since FY 2012, the 10th Contracting Squadron has processed (or is currently processing) two ratification actions on behalf of USAFA/AD. Ratifications involve review of an unauthorized commitment (e.g., agreements entered into on behalf of the government by an individual/group lacking the authority to do so).

Equipment Effective Recommended Improvement Areas:

Recommend publicizing specific requirements for salient characteristics submittal associated with brand name or equal purchases Salient characteristics need to be measureable in order

(b)(5)

(b)(5)

(b)(5)

(b)(5)

(b)(5)




to evaluate potential "or equal" items offered by vendors - "or equal" items can also increase potential competition and thus, potentially, lead to better value procurements. For instance, included among the salient characteristics for the purchase of athletic tape were the following:

- High tensile strength tape prevents breakage during athletic practices, games and weight training. Measurement of high tensile strength is not specific and manufacturers' claim of "high tensile strength" is subjective. Specify requirement to state tensile strength of X number of pounds per inch. Consider the gold standard Elastic tape in College and Pro sports. (Is there only one "gold standard" in elastic tape in college and pro sports? If so, you are limiting your requirement to one brand only - potentially unnecessarily limiting competition and paying higher prices. Who determines what is the gold standard, etc.)

Facilities and Environment Comments:

Most new physical education and training equipment is dependent upon fall out money. PE department leadership attributed a 50% decline in physical fitness testing failures and deficiencies due to the upgraded athletic facilities.

Guidance Marginally Effective Deficiencies:

F.34127.1692381: Significant Athletic Department Publications Manager did not accomplish a periodic required review every 4 years as prescribed by Air Force guidance for publications. 29 of 36 Athletic Department Operating Instructions (ADOIs) are overdue this review. Additionally, "Program Guidance Letters" (PGL) are currently being used to establish AD functions while transitioning to the AFAAC. A PGL is an internal HQ USAF document and is not for use at the Wing or unit level (AFI 10-501). The correct mechanism is Guidance Memorandum (GM). This document issues interim guidance to prescribe new procedures when there is insufficient time to revise or publish publications. Additionally, if the GM is tasking agencies outside the Athletic Department then all tasked/required coordinators will be required to review.

Reference: AFI 33-360 Para. 5.4.2. & Table 4.1 Para. 7 AFI10-501 Para 4.


Recommend that USAFA/AD work in coordination with USAFA/A1, USAFA/DS, USAFA/CV to rewrite the superintendent's administrative authorities memorandum dated 23 May 2014 to meet the superintendent's intent while creating a more efficient and expeditious audit trail ensuring compliance. Currently there is no evidence of an audit trail ensuring that all mandatory coordination has been accomplished. Additionally, recommend the use of the

(b)(5)

(b)(5)

(b)(5)




automated Evaluation Management System (EMS) in lieu of the current mandated use of the antiquated and laborious Staff Summary Sheet process.

Airmen's Time Marginally Effective Deficiencies:

F.34127.1685366: Significant Some General Schedule (GS) employees responded they work more than 40 hours per week or 80 hours per two weeks. Most admitted that they felt that came with the job. However, some expressed concern that the manpower cuts caused a situation where employees had either to decide to work greater than 40 hours/week or accept that necessary work would not be completed.

Reference: AFI 1-2, 3.3.6.

LEADING PEOPLE MARGINALLY EFFECTIVE

Communication Effective Comments:

The Athletic Department uses several regularly scheduled venues to disseminate information. These include a weekly senior staff meeting, a weekly coaches meeting, quarterly director's call, and as needed personnel and culture/climate meetings. Nearly all interviewees felt communication from these meetings was good and had improved significantly in the last several months. Additionally, nearly all interviewees stated senior leadership had an "open door" policy that enabled easy access. Many interviewees expressed displeasure with the communication surrounding the proposed athletic program cuts or implemented cuts. AD leadership explained they were directed by USAFA senior leadership to not disclose or discuss specific details of the proposed cuts. AD leadership discussed the sensitivity of the changes at Director's Calls and answered questions they believed they were authorized to answer. Additionally, many respondents stated there was a barrier to communication between "4th Floor" senior leadership and other employees. One stated cause was the physical separation between those AD members residing in the FAC and those residing in the Cadet Gym. Another stated cause was the apparent lack of senior leadership being present and visible in areas outside of the 4th Floor or premier sports venues. AD leadership instituted an Administrator of the Day program in December 2013 in order to rectify this perception.

Discipline

Compliance Effective Comments:

AFI 36-3501 para 2.12.5.2. directs the Athletic Director to comply with NCAA and governing

(b)(5)

(b)(5)

(b)(5)

(b)(5)

(b)(5)

(b)(5)

(b)(5)

(b)(5)




athletic conference rules so long as consistent with Department of Defense or Air Force Directives. In the event of a conflict between these directives and NCAA rules, the Athletic Department and AFAAA must follow the DoD and AF directives or obtain a waiver from the appropriate Air Staff office or agency. Job performance standards for both government employee coaches and AFAAC-contracted coaches support this requirement.

Strengths:

The Athletic Department maintains a rigorous process to ensure its teams and coaches are in compliance with NCAA rules. The NCAA compliance division is thorough and reliable in enforcing and documenting NCAA's very detailed and numerous rules. Several alleged team violations were brought to the IG's attention prior to the inspection and in each case the actual NCAA rule violation was documented in the coach's civilian personnel folder. Furthermore, the communication and dissemination of NCAA requirements is exceptional. The NCAA requires only one compliance meeting annually, but ADWC holds 7 meetings annually and weekly coach meetings.

Deficiencies:

F.34127.1692390: Minor Chief of intramural Division (ADPAM) failed to ensure that all safety briefings were accomplished and personnel protective equipment was worn by participant's intramural championships. ADOI 36-3505 Para 2.9.5.2 states "Require all players to wear prescribed equipment and ensure the equipment is properly fitted. Players not in proper uniform will not participate until the proper uniform is worn. Officials will validate that participants are wearing the proper attire and (or) equipment."

- Cadet was observed not wearing shin guards during entire soccer match - Safety briefings were not accomplished prior to soccer or flag football championship

Reference: ADOI 36-3505, 2.10.3.1./2.10.6. & 2.10.3.2

Accountability Marginally Effective Comments:

Athletic Department coaches are in a unique position with their cadet-athletes regarding accountability of USAFA standards. Coaches are not in the cadet chain of command yet when on-season, they spend many more hours with their cadet-athletes than the official chain of command. Therefore, they are in an ideal position to mentor, develop character and uphold cadet standards.

All government employee coaches have the following Performance Standard in their Air Force Core Personnel Document and they are evaluated on this measure annually:

(b)(5)




"Maintains the professional and ethical standards of the Academy. Proactively enhances the Academy Core Values, Officer Development System, and USAFA regulations and operating instructions. Actively accepts responsibility as a positive USAFA role model and mentor to the cadets in their course and programs."

The AFAAC-contracted coaches have the following statement in their contracts:

"Character and Leadership Role Model. The Employee is responsible for creating the best possible environment for cadet character development. The Employee will encourage and facilitate the development of moral maturity among cadets by evidencing a personal code of conduct that puts integrity first, service before self and excellence in all that the Employee does. The Employee will provide cadets with an opportunity to engage in dialogue that stresses the importance and challenges of sound moral character in leadership by sharing life experiences of their own character journey. These character lessons form an important part of a cadet's transition to active duty service by enhancing their sense of responsibility to others through participation as a member of a team focused on accomplishing team goals over personal objectives."

AFAAC leadership understands that there is not a clear enforcement mechanism in the current contracts for the Character and Leadership Role Model standard. AFAAC leadership could terminate an employee's contract for committing "any act that violates the moral and ethical standards of the United States Air Force Academy" but that is open to interpretation regarding the Character and Leadership Role Model standard. AFAAC leadership did state that they were reviewing enforcement options for new contracts.

Nearly all interviewed coaches stated they were prepared to uphold cadet standards. Many gave examples of how they have removed cadets from their intercollegiate rosters due to multiple probations. However, nearly all admitted that they had not (until only recently) read the Cadet Sight Picture.

AD leadership, coaches and cadet-athletes have initiated many positive culture and climate initiatives. These include the Student Athlete Advisory Committee, Cadet Athletes Against Sexual Violence, Mentors in Violence Prevention, community service projects and earning NCAA sportsmanship awards.

Deficiencies:

F.34127.1692334: Significant Many interviewed members have the perception there is a lack of accountability for misconduct. Individuals stated employees have resigned their positions rather than be part of an environment which is perceived to not hold people accountable. Two situations

(b)(5)

(b)(5)

(b)(5)




in particular suggest the department failed to thoroughly investigate the facts or did not follow through with administrative or disciplinary action. Inspectors found no records of a formal investigation for either case.

- An employee was allegedly stealing Nike apparel for personal use. Employee was allowed to retire and depart.

- An employee allegedly threatened another employee. Not all witnesses were interviewed. In another case, results from a CDI were not documented in an employee's civilian personnel folder. In May 2013, the 10 ABW/CC directed a CDI on allegations of sexual discrimination and harassment. The investigating officer substantiated both allegations but no record of counseling, administrative action, or discipline exists in the suspect's civilian personnel folder.



Recommend USAFA/AD and 10 ABW/CPO develop and write guidance to determine appropriate process concerning civilian disciplinary and adverse actions in regards to NCAA discipline actions and requirements. Points that need to be considered in determining process:

- NCAA requires and in cases determines level of punishment that is acceptable unlike Air Force process where supervisors determine actions. See AFI 36-704 Para 33.

- Letters of Admonishment and Reprimand meanings may differ in level of severity between NCAA and Air Forces guidance

-- Recommend using alternate language to LOA/LORs for 1st and 2nd minor NCAA infractions then proceed with Air Force Guidance if determined by supervisor manager Supervisors observe the principle of "like penalties for like offenses in like circumstances." Apply penalties as consistently as possible considering the particular circumstances of the cause for disciplinary action. AFI36-704 Para 32.1 Select penalties that aren't disproportionate to the offense and contribute to the solution of the problem and to the attainment of an effective management environment. AFI36-704 Para 32.1.2

- Review Burden of Proof is there an impact on the efficiency of the Air Force? AFI 36-704 para 10.2

Attention to Detail Marginally Effective Deficiencies:

F.34127.1692346: Significant USAFA/AD Human Resources Program Advisor did not effectively oversee and administers HR programs. Specifically, AD Supervisors failed to maintain and annotate

(b)(5)

(b)(5)

(b)(5)




civilian employee records in accordance with published Air Force guidance. The following discrepancies were noted of the initial 79 records reviewed an additional 47 records were reviewed resulting in the same consistent pattern of discrepancies but not reported:

- 1 occurrence of a civilian core doc not being maintained in the record - 16 occurrences of civilian position descriptions not being signed - 23 occurrences of civilian position descriptions not being reviewed annually - 2 occurrence that no appraisals were accomplished - 8 occurrences of appraisals not being signed by the employee - 12 occurrences of appraisals not being signed by the rater/appraiser - 15 occurrences of additional appraisal documentation errors - 11 occurrences of supervisors not performing a midterm feedback - 1 occurrence of no notice of furlough - 17 occurrence of entire folders not containing the required forms

Reference: AFI 36-106 & Civilian Position Description

F.34127.1692348: Minor USAFA/AD Human Resources Program Advisor failed to effectively oversee and administers HR programs. Specifically, Supervisors were not held to task in regards to following maintenance and disposition instructions on 68 of 79 civilian records reviewed. Multiple instances of outdated USAFA policy letters dating back as far as 1988 and other AF documents were not maintained or disposed of in accordance with Air Force guidance.

Reference: AFMAN 33-363, Air Force Records Disposition Schedule & Civilian Position Description

F.34127.1692393: Minor

PE Fitness Test and Evaluations Chief (ADPVT) did not ensure required testing was administered during the Cadet PFT. The IG inspector followed 3 separate groups from the waiting lines on the outside of the track through all PFT events and did not witness the accomplishment of the sit and reach portion at any time during the event.

Reference: ADOI 36-3504, 2.20.1.1.

F.34127.1692352: Minor

The AD Records Custodian and Supervisors did not ensure that the Civilian Supervisor Records Folders were marked in accordance with the Air Force Records Management program or the Privacy Act Program. Additionally, suggest training and periodic reviews be accomplished by the Human Resource Program Manager to ensure compliance.

- Approximately 15 records reviewed had PII stickers affixed to the outside of the folder




Folders this is not authorized in accordance with Air Force guidance. - Approximately 25 records review had PII cover sheets affixed to the on the outside of

the folder this is not authorized in accordance with air force guidance - Civilian Supervisor Records were not marked in accordance with Air Force Records

Management Guidance

Reference: AFI 33-332 Para 1.1.11.8., 2.2.3. 9.4.4. & AFMAN 33-363

F.34127.1685394: Minor Human Resources Program manager did not ensure that supervisors did not maintain personnel notes in the Civilian Supervisor Records. Air Force personnel or supporting contractors shall not file personal notes in a System of Record SOR, as personal notes will be considered part of the SOR.

Reference: AFI 33-332 Para 1.1.11 & 1.1.11.10.


Recommend that the USAFA/AD Human Resource Program Manager in coordination with the 10 FSS/CPO educate Athletic Department supervisor on maintaining and disposition of Civilian Supervisor Records.

Training

Individual Effective Comments:

New AD faculty members are required to attend the faculty orientation program. Nearly all interviewees found this training useful in preparing them to teach and coach within the Academy environment. The PE department reviews expectations and standards prior to each semester. Government employees must complete mandated DoD and AF training courses via the Advanced Distance Learning System. Employees contracted through the AFAAC only take the courses required to gain access to the USAFA network. Other human-relations courses are encouraged but not mandatory at this time. AFAAC leadership is reviewing employee contracts to determine what training should be mandatory.

Deficiencies:

F.34127.1685398: Minor Athletic Department Director did not ensure proper safety briefings, standards and trainings were properly accomplished or documented.

- 1 occurrence of a missing form 55 or equivalent - 17 occurrences of supervisor accomplishing annual reviews this action is no longer

required

(b)(5)

(b)(5)




- 18 occurrences of Job Safety Training Outlines (JSTO) not reviewed annual or JSTO outdated

- 52 occurrences of personnel not completed mandatory Fire Extinguisher Training

Reference: AFI 91-202 Para 1.5.20. & Attachment 5 & 91-203 Para 6.2.2.1.

F.34127.1692354: Minor USAFA/AD Athletic Director did not ensure that all required Ancillary training was accomplished. The following is the number of personnel by program that has not accomplished mandatory training.

- 51 of 151 personnel assigned are not current on No Fear Act Training - 30 of 151 personnel assigned are not current on the Free Exercise of Religion Training - 18 of 151 personnel assigned are not current on Suicide Prevention Training - 15 of 151 personnel assigned are not current on Human Relation Training - 12 of 151 personnel assigned are not current on Force Protection Training - 31 of 181 personnel assigned are not current on Information Protection Training

(includes contractors) - 24 of 181 personnel assigned are not current on DOD IAA CyberAware Training

(includes contractors)

Reference: AFI36-2201 Para 7.3.

Development

Professional Effective

Quality of Life Engagement Comments:

Athletic Department leadership received results from a 19 Dec 13 Unit Climate Assessment (UCA). Only 46 members (24.3%) responded to the UCA which is not statistically representative of the entire unit. However, the UCA reported that Cohesion and Pride were favorable (85.5%) but Motivation and Morale was a negative factor (23.3% Neutral, 25.1% Unfavorable). Additionally, the areas of Perceived Discrimination and Overt Discriminatory Behaviors are "zero tolerance" areas and respondents stated 8% and 6.5% unfavorable conditions in those areas respectively. On the other hand, 10 ABW Equal Opportunity had no substantiated work environment cases in the past since Jan 2011. Also, members of the Athletic Department participated in the 2014 USAFA Faculty and Staff Climate Survey. 52 members (32%) responded to this survey which again, is not statistically representative of the entire unit. The 2014 USAFA Faculty and Staff Climate Survey results were similar to and supported the 2013 Unit Climate Assessment. Inspectors interviewed 31 individuals regarding the culture and climate of the Athletic Department. Collectively, their answers also

(b)(5)

(b)(5)




supported the UCA and Faculty Climate Survey. Responses suggest that due to various external and internal threats, employees lost a sense of belonging, shared values, trust and cooperation.

Unit Morale Marginally Effective Deficiencies:

F.34127.1641246: Significant Nearly all interviewees stated department morale was extremely low due to the following reasons:

- Threat to cutting sports and actual manpower cuts - Federal budget declines resulting in sequestration and furloughs - Instability caused by transitioning from NAFI to AFAAC - "4th Floor" gap between senior administrators and coaches/instructors/support

personnel - Negative perception of athletes caused by media focusing on misbehavior of only a few

cadets - Lack of accountability for perceived and/or alleged wrong-doings - Past USAFA senior leadership making AD personnel decisions and (perceived) placing

their favored people in senior positions - Favoritism in hiring ("Good ole boy network") - A lack of understanding how the AFAAC operates - A resources and advocacy gap between the 5 premier and 22 other sports - An advocacy gap between intercollegiate athletics and the other mission sets:

intramurals, PE and testing - Government employee coaches were required to teach PE while AFAAC-contracted

coaches did not


IMPROVING THE UNIT EFFECTIVE

Strategic Alignment Effective

Strategic Planning Comments:

The AD vision statement encourages individuals (permanent party) in the AD to be their best to produce outstanding officers.

The mission statement has four main areas. Area 1 provides leadership through a challenging environment. Area 2 is designed to prepare cadets for a life of service through athletic training and competition. Area 3 is focused on revenue generation to support

(b)(5)

(b)(5)

(b)(5)

(b)(5)

(b)(5)




multimillion dollar athletic program. Area 4 is focused on promoting USAFA to the nation through athletics. This mission statement aligns and supports the USAFA mission statement in Areas 1, 2 and 4. Area 3 is confusing and may be a byproduct of the transition from government only entity to government/non-profit entity (AFAAC). Recommend the removal of Area 3 as it is captured within the AFAAC mission statement. AFAAC should be concerned about generating revenue. Individuals in AD understood the importance of mission statement areas 1, 2 and 4. They also acknowledged that Area 3 was out of place with the advent of the AFAAC.

The AD Strategic Plan was published in September 2013 and addressed a 5-year span of time. The plan is aligned to the vision and mission and provides key assumptions and links to USAFA as a whole. The plan consists of 6 strategic goals with 17 supporting objectives to achieve the goals. Each objective is supported by a set of initiatives with a designated metric. Based on the assessment of the Strategic Plan, it is well designed to support mission achievement.


Recommend AD leadership implement oversight and strict review of the Strategic Plan. The Strategic Plan states, "Successful implementation of the Strategic Plan will involve aggressive oversight by Athletic Department leadership. Strict review cycles are critical to check the progress of the group toward accomplishing the INIs. Monitoring and reporting on the progress of the Strategic Plan will help maintain the focus required for success. As such, the Athletic Department will review the status of all INIs on a quarterly basis at a minimum, but this will be a vibrant living document and as such will be reviewed at weekly staff meeting and adjusted accordingly" (AD Strategic Plan, 30). Inspectors did not observe that there was either aggressive oversight or a strict review of the Strategic Plan.

Performance Metrics Comments:

The AD Strategic Plan supports its strategic goals and objectives with initiatives that are designed to collect metrics over designated periods. Interviews indicated that data was being collected and presented to AD leadership. Data were collected and analyzed by a dedicated metric developer and monitor. In some areas such as Strategic Plan objective 1.1 and 1.2, it was evident that data were collected and were used to make improvement to the cadet physical education and reconditioning program. It was also evident that cadet Physical Education Average (PEA) data were being used to better forecast the success of cadet's physical success. Discussion of the PEA indicates that it is the best proxy available of individual cadet athletic success. Cadet athletic success as measured by PEA was one indicator of AD mission success.

(b)(5)

(b)(5)

(b)(5)




There were concerns expressed that intramurals (IM) needed to be included somehow in the cadet PEA and that intercollegiate coaches did not vary the physical education scores allocated them by AD for the players in their program. A discussion should take place covering these two concerns.

Unlike the metrics that are collected by the PE section, the intercollegiate (IC) sections metrics are less direct in regards to cadet growth. While all IC cadets receive PE inputs indirectly from their sports team, direct feedback beyond the athletic field is limited. Direct feedback comes from the Form 94, but this event happens during the senior year and is late in the cadet to officer development process. An AD official explained that USAFA graduates have told him that their IC experiences were critical to their development and growth beyond USAFA. When asked if IC cadets express this same sentiment, he explained that the question hasn't been asked.

It was expressed by members of AD that much of the performance metrics were captured in the AD history report. After reviewing the 2013-2014 AD History Report, it is evident that AD has a process in place to capture the critical events that happen across the AD enterprise. However, it is also evident that many of the 35-performance metrics designated in the AD strategic plan are not being captured and codified on a regular basis (quarterly). Based on discussion with members of AD, most if not all of the 35-performance metric are occurring on an ongoing basis, but the codification of the results has been inconsistent.


Given the tacit nature of the IC athletic experience (practice and competition); recommend that AD work with the CCLD to develop a reflection program for IC cadets. In this program, IC cadets will document their IC experience. The rich data will be useful to support the strengths that are reported from athletic experience, but difficult to codify. The AFAAC should be used to collect post USAFA data from former IC cadets.

Recommend that the performance metrics for the 35 initiatives be kept in a centralized area and be viewed on a quarterly basis as a designated in the AD Strategic Plan. Additionally, the AD History Report should be kept as well as it provides a qualitative view that may not be captured in the quantitative measures. Finally, a thorough review of the metrics should be accomplished to determine if all 35 measures are needed (i.e. many of the measures reflect the same concept).

(b)(5) (b)(5)

(b)(5)




Process Operations Effective

Key Work Processes Strengths:

The majority of interviewees stated the Athletic Department relies heavily upon military air (Mil Air) transportation for team travel. This is a cost-effective travel method but long term use is questionable if AF Reserve and Guard participation decreases. Each year, AD saves approximately $600K by using Mil Air. Ms. Keleen Brown very effectively manages the Mil Air program. Interviewees stated that if their team used Mil Air, the money saved was aggregated at a higher level to be used for un-programmed emerging requirements. For example, if athletes qualified for NCAA national competition, funds for this opportunity came from money saved from Mil Air travel. Only two of the 27 teams did not historically use Mil Air. In the future, all athletic teams should use Mil Air when it meets requirements.


Recommend submittal of Purchase Requests stay within the proposed timelines from the annual 10 CONS' Purchase Requests deadlines letter. Late purchase requests put significant pressure on the 10 CONS' ability to successfully execute awards and secure the best value while meeting mandatory federal regulations and acquisition timelines. In addition, late purchase requests result in overtime expenses and/or compensatory time expenses on behalf of 10 CONS' employees. The AD resource advisor could work with 10 CONS' Contracting Officers/Specialists to project purchase requirements and submit purchase requests/planning purchase requests prior to deadlines (can also submit prior to receipt of funding).

Recommend a review be accomplished and process established for AFAAC held Prospect Camps by the following organizations: USAFA/A1, 10 ABW/FSMC, USAFA/JA & USAFA/AD - Legal review of the following:

-- Can a position that were cut during 703 or 720 cuts be replaced with a contract position -- Are all participants, coaches, volunteers, trainers covered under insurance -- Are Air Force facilities & equipment authorized to be used -- Who is being tasked to support the event

- SFS/contractors allow participant access onto installation - Mil/DAFC/NAF being utilized for event support - Ensure Civilian Coach Volunteers are not earning comp/overtime - Ensure USAFA Events Program Management Process is used to coordinate all events

-- Reference: USAFI 36-3525 -- Determine if Prospect Camps are External or Internal events IAW USAFAI 36-3525

(b)(6)

(b)(5)

(b)(5)




Risk Management Comments:

The unit has an informal, undocumented risk management process. Leadership has determined that its greatest risk to mission is caused by manpower cuts. With the loss of assistant coaches, the potential development of the cadets' athletic performance is reduced, thereby implying a lower level of competition. Leadership stated their was a risk to people because they cut athletic trainers so fewer were available to mitigate/care for cadet injuries. Leadership also identified a lack of appropriate guidance for the profit/non-profit cooperative agreement. In order to minimize this risk to mission from the loss of manpower, employees have had to assume more responsibilities. For example, coaches have to conduct more logistical planning rather than focus on training plans. Furthermore, some head coaches are examining donor funding streams to contract for and hire a replacement second assistant coach.


Recommend field safety cordon be established and enforced for spectator and player safety. Rational, two collisions were witnessed during the soccer championship between spectators and players. Cadet EMTs evaluated both spectators and neither person was injured. Furthermore, the cadet Sabre and Rifle Drill teams were performing within 3 yards of the back of the end zone of the football game. Cadets were carrying squadron charges (6' plastic composite beams) between fields and placing them close to the fields to watch the games. All of these activities that are not related to the Intramural activities increase the potential for injuries

Recommend additional medical support from cadet EMTs to observe hallways during the PFT. Sports Medicine Athletic Trainer was providing coverage on the track/testing floor but once test was completed, cadets were instructed to head upstairs and recover in the hallway without escorts to monitor cadets' wellbeing (i.e. in case cadets faint, get sick, etc.).

Commitment to Continuous Improvement Deficiencies:

F.34127.1641224: Minor Interviewees responded there is a lack of commitment to continuous improvement. Answers included a philosophy that things were always done a certain way so why change it. Key processes were either not documented or the associated AD Operating Instruction were out-of-date. Personalities and relationships tended to drive processes rather than documented, repeatable processes.

Reference: AFI 1-2, para. 3.4.2.

(b)(5)

(b)(5)

(b)(5)




Recommended Improvement Areas: Recommend AD work with USAFA/A1M to leverage Continuous Process Improvement (CPI) programs to help encourage and incentivize employee innovation to streamline its operations as it begins to cope with recent manpower reductions. Interviews revealed that no formal CPI program exists in AD, although staff meetings are used to discuss ways to solve problems/issues. USAFA's CPI program, administered by USAFA/A1M, is now being repurposed to better leverage the AFSO21 process as well as the new Airman Powered by Innovation Program to help USAFA streamline its processes and look for efficiencies as a way to offset resource reductions and fund new requirements. Reference: USAFA/CC direction to continuously improve processes, AFSO21 Playbook, AF Airman Powered by Innovation Program guidance

Data-Driven Decision Effective Comments:

End of course data (written and verbal) were used to make decisions and improve operations. PE has collected data through a variety of methods over the last 15-years including 4-years of using the CEE online instructor feedback system. While electronic feedback was desirable, the response rate was too low to provide useful feedback to the PE section of AD. The response rate was low under the electronic system because of the following reasons: 1) no wifi in athletic venues, 2) cadets don't bring laptops to athletic classes and 3) response rate decreases when cadets leave the classroom environment (i.e. return to their dorms). As a result, PE return to the manually collection of course feedback. AD would like to collect electronic feedback, but dedicated resources in the form of tablets and wifi will need to be added. Another example of data driven decision making is in regards to the implementation of Yoga this semester. Based on cadet feedback, Yoga was requested as an option; however, AD was unable to support the addition of another class without a class being removed. AD used cost analysis to determine that Scuba served a limited number of cadets and was an expensive course to operate. As a result, AD saved money while meeting the desires of the cadet wing. PFT and AFT data were used to change PE curriculum to provide cadets the tools to be successful in the fitness endeavors. Specifically, data from BCT PFT were used to vector "fitness at risk" cadets into a specialized healthy living course to empower the cadets to make better choices. This initiative is aligned to Lt Gen Johnson's effort to empower cadets by providing the needed information early in their cadet career. Another example of data driven decision making is in regards to the cadet intramural program. Feedback from the cadet wing showed that the IM season was too long and cadets were not motivated to compete. The IM program received this feedback and worked with cadet wing leadership to develop an accelerated IM season that returned more time to the Cadet and increased cadet motivation to compete.

(b)(5)

(b)(5)




Recommended Improvement Areas: Recommend AD fully utilize its existing employee exit interview process to determine why individuals are terminating their employment, analyze this information for any trends, and to take corrective actions as warranted. An analysis of civilian personnel losses records (2011 thru 2014) indicates AD is experiencing a high 18% annual civilian employee attrition rate.

Decision Processes Comments:

The Athletic Director made major policy decisions, including until recently, hiring decisions. Senior sports supervisors made the majority of decisions for intercollegiate athletics. These decisions included daily operations, disbursement of funds to their specific teams and travel modes. Decisions were made informally rather than through a formal corporate process.

EXECUTING THE MISSION HIGHLY EFFECTIVE

Comments: All interviewed members appreciated that their mission was to produce leaders of character by providing opportunities for cadets to compete in a physical environment. The Athletic Department does this through intercollegiate athletics, intramurals, physical education classes and fitness testing. Few interviewees mentioned the other elements "Generate revenue necessary to operate a multi-million dollar athletic program" or "Promote the Academy to the nation through Athletics."

Primary Mission Highly Effective Comments:

Inspectors observed the event set-up and execution of various mission-related venues. These included an intercollegiate game, intramurals and the cadet physical fitness test.

Members remarked numerous times about the duality between the cadet immersive experience and competing at the highest level. In other words, one can come at the expense of the other. The primary example was the amount of athletic training time. Other NCAA Division I programs spend many more hours preparing for competition. Another aspect was the tension between NCAA rules interpretations and Department of Defense directives. In the event of a conflict between directives and NCAA rules, the Athletic Department must follow the DoD and AF directives. This was particularly evident in travel restrictions and pre-competition entitlements. It's important to note that most coaches were not upset by this; many realized this was a fact of life for Air Force Academy intercollegiate programs because the institution's primary mission was to develop cadets into officers for the United States Air Force.

(b)(5)

(b)(5)

(b)(5)




Right Quality Strengths:

ADP Intramural Team fulfilled the AD mission of providing all cadets realistic leadership experiences in a mentally and physically challenging environment. The intramural program is cadet executed and provides leadership opportunities through planning, administration and participation. ADP Intramural Team enables additional cadet opportunities and rewards through the extramural program. ADP Intramurals Team accomplishes excellent cross-communication with other agencies to include sports medicine, human performance lab, facilities, equipment and transportation.




REPLY INSTRUCTIONS

USAFA/AD director will appoint an Inspector General Evaluation Management System (IGEMS) Administrative Manager NLT 10 Oct 14 via the USAFA/IG Org Box. The IGEMS Administrative Managers will be the focal point to update all root-cause analysis, deficiency cause codes and corrective action plans NLT 21 Nov 14. USAFA/IG will manage the reported deficiencies within IGEMS and provide progress updates to the USAFA/AD. Minor deficiencies will be closed upon approval by the USAFA/AD Director or designee. Critical and significant deficiencies will be closed upon approval by the USAFA/IG and local Functional Area Managers.




SUPERIOR PERFORMERS

The following have been recognized as Superior Performers:

NAME TITLE Linda Huggler Chief, Compliance Division Capt Douglas Sturm Executive Officer (b)(6)




TEAM COMPOSITION

DRU Inspection Division Chief Col David Kuenzli DRU Inspection Team Chief Mr. Scott Anderson DRU Inspection Team Inspector Lt Col Gerry Gonzalez DRU Inspection Team Inspector Lt Col Eric Tucker DRU Inspection Team Inspector Maj Carlenn Trunkhill DRU Inspection Team Inspector SMSgt Eva Roberts-Madrid DRU Inspection Team Inspector SMSgt Jason Malec DRU Inspection Team Inspector SSgt Kristopher Basgall DRU Inspection Team Inspector Mr. Albert Bryson DRU Inspection Team Inspector Mrs. Kim Diercks DRU Inspection Team Inspector Mr. Dale Hogue DRU Inspection Team Inspector Mrs. Lisa Lucero DRU Inspection Team Inspector Mrs. Marci Sekutera DRU Inspection Team Inspector Mr. Scott McLauthlin

(b)(6)




DISTRIBUTION LIST

USAFA/CC USAFA/CV USAFA/AD




KEY PERSONNEL

Lt Gen Michelle D. Johnson USAFA/CC Dr. Hans J. Mueh USAFA/CW Col David P. Kuenzli USAFA/IG




ACRONYMS

AD Administratively Determined ADOI Athletic Department Operating Instruction AFAAA Air Force Academy Athletic Association AFAAC Air Force Academy Athletic Corporation BCT Basic Cadet Training CA Cooperative Agreement CCLD Center for Character and Leadership Development CDI Commander Directed Inspection CEE Center for Educational Excellence CPI Continuous Process Improvement DAFC Department of the Air Force Civilian EMS Evaluation Management System EMT Emergency Medical Technician FAC Falcon Athletics Center GM Guidance Memorandum GPC Government Purchase Card GS General Schedule HHQ Higher Headquarter IC Intercollegiate IM Intramural INI Initiative JSTO Job Safety Training Outline JTR Joint Travel Regulation NAF Non-appropriated Fund NAFI Non-appropriated Fund Instrumentality PE Physical Education PEA Physical Education Average PFT Physical Fitness Test PII Personal Identifiable Information PGL Program Guidance Letters SOR System of Record UCA Unit Climate Assessment WG Wage Grade UMD Unit Manning Document



FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYTABLE OF CONTENTSDEFINITIONSOutstanding:Highly Effective:Effective:Marginally Effective:Ineffective:BEST PRACTICES:DEFICIENCIES:a. CRITICAL:b. Significant:c. Minor:RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENT AREA (RIA):STRENGTHS:SUPERIOR PERFORMERS/TEAMS:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYINSPECTION SUMMARYTable: Athletic Department Unit Grade / Aggregate Totals

CCIP INSPECTION RESULTSAdequacyFunds EffectiveFacilities Highly EffectiveStewardshipDeficiencies:Recommended Improvement Areas:Facilities and Environment Comments:Guidance Marginally EffectiveRecommended Improvement Areas:Airmen's Time Marginally EffectiveLEADING PEOPLE MARGINALLY EFFECTIVEDisciplineStrengths:Deficiencies:Accountability Marginally EffectiveDeficiencies:Recommended Improvement Areas:Attention to Detail Marginally EffectiveRecommended Improvement Areas:TrainingDeficiencies:DevelopmentUnit Morale Marginally EffectiveIMPROVING THE UNIT EFFECTIVERecommended Improvement Areas:Performance Metrics Comments:Recommended Improvement Areas:Process Operations EffectiveRecommended Improvement Areas:Risk Management Comments:Recommended Improvement Areas:Commitment to Continuous Improvement Deficiencies:Recommended Improvement Areas:Data-Driven Decision EffectiveRecommended Improvement Areas:Decision Processes Comments:EXECUTING THE MISSION HIGHLY EFFECTIVEPrimary Mission Highly EffectiveRight Quality Strengths:

REPLY INSTRUCTIONSSUPERIOR PERFORMERSNAME TITLE

TEAM COMPOSITIONDISTRIBUTION LISTKEY PERSONNELACRONYMS

Date post:	02-Oct-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	stephen-losey
View:	1,175 times
Download:	1 times

FINAL - USAFA Inspection Report - Redacted (2), 9 March 2015

Documents