000 03660cam a2200541 a 4500
001 rnd000000000111375
003 RAND
005 20200811100755.0
008 040117s2004 caua b 000 0 eng
010 _a 2004001261
020 _a0833035576 (pbk. : alk. paper)
027 _aRAND/MG-153-OSD
035 _a(Sirsi) o54073737
037 _c$20.00
_fpaperback
040 _aDLC
_cDLC
_dRSM
043 _an-us---
050 0 0 _aUA23
_b.B346 2004
245 0 0 _aBase realignment and closure (BRAC) and organizational restructuring in the DOD :
_bimplications for education and training infrastructure /
_cDina G. Levy ... [et al.].
246 1 7 _aBRAC and organizational restructuring in the DoD
246 3 _aBase realignment and closure (BRAC) and organizational restructuring in the Department of Defense
264 1 _aSanta Monica, CA :
_bRAND,
_c2004.
300 _axxiii, 99 pages :
_billustrations ;
_c23 cm
336 _atext
_btxt
_2rdacontent
337 _acomputer
_bc
_2rdamedia
337 _aunmediated
_bn
_2rdamedia
338 _aonline resource
_bcr
_2rdacarrier
338 _avolume
_bnc
_2rdacarrier
500 _a"National Defense Research Institute."
504 _aIncludes bibliographical references (p. 97-99).
505 0 _aIntroduction -- Defense Information School -- Department of Defense Polygraph Institute -- Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center -- National Geospatial Intelligence College -- Lessons Learned and Recommendations -- Appendix -- Bibliography.
520 _aThe Department of Defense (DoD) often improves its efficiency by consolidating facilities (mainly through base realignment and closure, or BRAC) and changing its governance structure. Subsequently, these shifts significantly affect the education, training, and development (ET&D) institutions that support DoD personnel. With an eye toward the scheduled round of BRAC in 2005, the DoD Office of the Chancellor of Education and Professional Development asked the RAND Corporation to review specific ways in which past initiatives have affected ET&D establishments. RAND researchers focused on four cases from the 1990s-two institutions that experienced significant infrastructure change (i.e., through physical relocation) and two that did not. Based on the lessons learned from the case studies, they make recommendations for decisionmakers to consider when moving an institution, remaining at a location, constructing a new facility, or consolidating institutions. The researchers also look at the strategies used by the institutions and their stakeholders to influence decisions about infrastructure change, focusing on clarifying roles and improving the ET&D system as a whole.
530 _aAlso available on the internet via WWW in PDF format.
650 0 _aMilitary base closures
_zUnited States.
650 0 _aMilitary base conversion
_zUnited States.
650 0 _aMilitary education
_zUnited States.
651 0 _aUnited States
_xArmed Forces
_xReorganization.
700 1 _aLevy, Dina G.
_eauthor.
700 1 _aMoini, Joy S.
_eauthor.
700 1 _aKaganoff, Tessa.
_eauthor.
700 1 _aKeating, Edward G.
_q(Edward Geoffrey),
_d1965-
_eauthor.
700 1 _aAugustine, Catherine H.,
_d1968-
_eauthor.
700 1 _aBikson, Tora K.,
_d1940-
_eauthor.
700 1 _aLeuschner, Kristin.
_eauthor.
700 1 _aGates, Susan M.,
_d1968-
_eauthor.
710 2 _aNational Defense Research Institute (U.S.).
_bForces and Resources Policy Center.
710 2 _aRand Corporation.
710 1 _aUnited States.
_bDepartment of Defense.
_bOffice of the Secretary of Defense.
856 4 1 _yOnline Access
_uhttp://www.rand.org/publications/MG/MG153/
999 _c597105
_d597105