Military Recruiting 2007: Army Misses Benchmarks by Greater Margin

In spite of efforts by the Pentagon to aggressively recruit youth into the Army, the Army missed its benchmarks once again in 2007. NPP releases its analysis of 2007 recruiting and provides access to data by state, county and ZIP Code.

The Iraq War began to have an impact on recruiting in 2005, when the Army missed its goal for the number of recruits. In 2007, for the third year in a row, the Army did not meet its benchmark for the level of educational attainment of recruits. The percentage of recruits the Department of Defense (DoD) considers ‘high quality’ also dropped considerably. A higher percentage of recruits will drop out well before the end of the first term of enlistment, leading to further increases in spending on recruitment and training, including enlistment bonuses and pay for additional recruiters.

This analysis is based on data obtained from the Department of Defense (Army Recruiting Command) through a Freedom of Information Act request submitted by the National Priorities Project. The Department of Defense provided the data for every non-prior service, active-duty Army recruit by ZIP Code with race, ethnicity, gender, birth date, citizenship, educational attainment and score on the Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT) for fiscal year 2007. Demographic data used in the study were purchased from Claritas, a leading marketing and demographic data company. Population Estimates from the Census Bureau were also used.

To access the data by ZIP Code, county, or state, go to the NPP Database.

This analysis of Army recruiting in fiscal year 2007 is the National Priorities Project’s fourth study on military recruiting. The data and statistics for 2007 are compared to earlier studies done by NPP where relevant.

Decrease in ‘educational attainment’ and ‘high quality’ recruits continues

Educational attainment

For the third consecutive year, the Army missed DoD benchmarks set for educational attainment and scores on the Armed Forces Qualification Test. The DoD has a goal that 90 percent of new recruits have a regular high school diploma or better. According to, what the DoD says is “more than 40 years of studies”, around 80 percent of those with regular high school diplomas will finish the first term of enlistment. Up to half of those with a GED, other alternative equivalency credential, or no credential will drop out during the first term of enlistment. Having a regular high school diploma is the single best predictor of successful completion of a first term of enlistment.1

High proportions of recruits dropping out during the first term of enlistment has serious consequences. In order to maintain end-strength, more recruits will be needed in future years. More personnel and money will need to be devoted to recruiting. Money, time and other resources spent on training recruits who drop out is lost.

The DoD classifies military recruits according to educational attainment in ‘tiers.’ Tier 1 recruits are those with at least a regular high school diploma. The proportion of active-duty Army recruits in tier 1 has dropped from 83.5 percent in 2005 to 70.7 percent in 2007. While the benchmark of 90 percent was also missed in 2005, the percentages have not been this low for at least 20 years. In 2006, the result was 73.1 percent.

Nevada with 54.1 percent, Montana with 58.2 percent, and Mississippi with 59.2 percent had the lowest percentages of recruits that were tier 1. Nevada, Oregon and Alaska had the lowest percentages in 2006. The vast majority of states, 42, showed declines in the proportion of tier 1 recruits. Only eight states plus the District of Columbia showed modest increases. Vermont, Nebraska and Minnesota had the highest percentages of tier 1 recruits, though they still were well below 90 percent with 80.8, 80.6, and 79.8 percent respectively. See Table 1.

The South and West had the lowest percentages of tier 1 recruits. The Midwest had the highest percentage. See Table 2.

Armed Forces Qualification Test

All recruits also take the Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT) which is normalized for the youth population. The test score indicates trainability. Those in Categories I and II tend to be above average in trainability; those in Category IIIA and IIIB are average; those in IV are below average; those in Category V are markedly below average.2

Until 2006, the DoD had a goal of at least 67 percent of recruits testing at least in the 50th percentile of the AFQT, in terms of the categories, I – IIIA. Since 2005, the percentage of active-duty Army recruits scoring in the top half of the AFQT has fallen. In 2007, it was 60.8 percent. The DoD attempted to cap Category IV recruits to less than 2 percent, but recently raised the cap to 4 percent. Historically, this has not been a problem, but since 2005, the percentage of Category IV recruits has been at least 4 percent. In 2007, it was 4.1 percent.

‘High quality’

The Department of Defense defines a ‘high quality’ recruit based on a combination of educational attainment and AFQT score. A ‘high quality’ recruit is one who scores at or above the 50th percentile on the AFQT, and who is tier I (has a regular high school diploma or better). The DoD strives to have all recruits be ‘high quality’ as these recruits will be more likely to complete contracted enlistment terms and perform better in training and on the job. The percentage of ‘high quality’ recruits has dropped precipitously. In 2005, it was 56.2 percent, in 2006, it was 46.6 percent and in 2007, the number dropped further to 44.6 percent. Compared to 2004, the Army is recruiting more than one-fourth fewer ‘high quality’ youth.

States with the lowest percentages of ‘high quality’ recruits were Mississippi with 31.6 percent, Louisiana with 33.3 percent, and Nevada with 33.6 percent. Mississippi, Alabama, and Arkansas had the lowest percentages in 2006. While 17 states showed improvements in the proportion of ‘high quality’ recruits, 33 showed declines with one state remaining the same. Minnesota, New Hampshire and South Dakota had the highest percentages of ‘high quality’ recruits. See Table 3.

The South had the lowest percentage of ‘high quality’ recruits, followed by the West. The Midwest had the highest percentage of ‘high quality’ recruits. See Table 2.

States with higher recruitment rates – the number of recruits per 1,000 youth – correlated with lower percentages of ‘high quality’ recruits and lower percentages of tier 1 recruits.3 In other words, in high recruiting states, the Army may be recruiting more youth into the service, but at a greater long-term cost.

Wealthier neighborhoods remain under-represented

In 2007, upper-middle and high-income neighborhoods – those with median household incomes of $60,000 and greater – remained under-represented. The representation of these neighborhoods declined compared to 2004. Low- and middle-income neighborhoods – those with median household incomes of between $30,000 and $54,999 – became more over-represented compared to 2004. As the Iraq War continues for almost five years, the burden continues to be borne by low- and middle-income neighborhoods. See Graph.

‘Very poor’ ZIP Codes appear to be under-represented but this result should be treated with caution. Preliminary research indicates a large number of these ZIP Codes are university dormitories. Thus, they have unusually high 18-24 year-old populations, few recruits and very low median household incomes.

Counties and States with high numbers of recruits and high recruitment rates

Harris County, Texas with 1,025 recruits; Maricopa County, Arizona with 923 recruits; and Los Angeles County, California with 917 recruits topped the list for counties with the highest absolute number of recruits. See Table 4. These areas have large youth populations, so more indicative of recruiting is the number per 1,000 youth population. Edwards County, Texas; Dixie County, Florida; Galax city, Virginia; and Turner County, Georgia had the highest recruitment rates, all over 10 per 1,000 youth. See Table 5.

Alabama with 2.51; Montana with 2.37, and Maine with 2.34 had the highest recruitment rates out of all states. The national average was 1.59 recruits per 1,000 youth. The largest numbers of recruits were from Texas, California, Florida and New York. See Table 6.

The South had the highest recruitment rate followed by the Midwest. The Northeast had the lowest recruitment rate. See Table 2.

Other characteristics of recruits

Citizenship

Past NPP requests for DoD data on recruiting did not include citizenship. The data for fiscal year 2007 was the first time NPP requested the citizenship of recruits. Of all recruits, 3.1 percent were not U.S. citizens. Nearly 60 percent of non-citizen recruits came from California, Florida, New York and Texas, while only 32 percent of recruits overall came from these states.

Age

Up until 2006, an Army recruit could be anywhere between the age of 17 and 35. In January 2006, the DoD raised the age range up to 40 and then raised it again to 42 in June of the same year. Out of all recruits in fiscal year 2007, 1,596 or 2.4 percent, were 35-40 years of age and 71, or 0.11 percent were 41 or 42. In other words, fewer than 2.5 percent of all recruits were 35 or older by the end of fiscal year 2007. More than one in five recruits was 18, the most common age for recruits; 62% were 22 or younger; and 90% were 28 or younger by the end of the fiscal year.

Race and Ethnicity

The composition of recruits by race has not changed significantly since 2005. Data prior to 2005 are incompatible due to the change in categorization. Whites comprised 80.8 percent of active-duty Army recruits in fiscal year 2007; blacks made up 14.9 percent of recruits; Asians 3.2 percent; and American Indian/Alaskan Natives 1.0 percent. Recruits who were of Hispanic ethnicity declined from 11.8 percent in 2005 to 10.7 percent in 2007.

Serious consequences from recruiting woes

Recruiting difficulties have led to increased expenditures spent on recruiting. According to the federal government’s assessment rating of the Department of Defense recruiting program, “[T]he recruiting environment is more difficult, resulting in increased costs for bonuses and other incentives…Additional recruiters and funds were applied to the program in FY 2006 and FY 2007.”4 More than $4 billion is spent annually on recruiting.

Prior to 2005, only non-prior service ‘high quality’ recruits in selected occupations were eligible for bonuses. Subsequently, higher incentives to a much wider audience were implemented. In 2005, the Army instituted the “HiGrad” program which awarded cash bonuses to recruits with college credits, regardless of occupation. In 2006, the maximum amount for an enlistment bonus increased from $20,000 to $40,000 in order to address the shortfall in recruiting experienced in 2005. The Army College Fund payout and the maximum benefit from the Student Loan Repayment Program also increased to $70,000 and $65,000, respectively. In 2007, the Army introduced enlistment bonuses for shorter enlistment periods. In August of that year, the Army announced a $20,000 “quick-ship” bonus for recruits willing to report to basic training within 30 days of enlistment. The "Future Soldier Training Program," also introduced in 2007 and designed for high school seniors, pays recruits now to serve later. The Army pays high school students $1,000 per month between the commitment contract and leaving for basic training. Recruits in this program receive an additional $1,000 for graduating high school. Students may participate for up to one year, receiving up to $13,000 in the program.

In January 2005, the Army instituted an enlistment bonus of up to $10,000 for prior service recruits. The results of that incentive paid off for the Army. In 2006, more than 12,000 recruits, or nearly 15 percent, were prior service recruits. In 2007, the number climbed to more than 13,000, or 16.2 percent of all 2007 recruits. In 2005, fewer than 6,300, or 8.6 percent, of all recruits were prior service. The shortfalls in new recruits have been made up with prior service recruits.

Re-enlistment bonuses have also increased significantly. In 2006, these incentives increased from a maximum of $60,000 to $90,000. Total spending on re-enlistment bonuses increased from $505.6 million in FY2005 to $736.9 million in FY2006. In 2004, it was only $142.9 million and in 2003, $102.6 million, according to the Department of Defense Army budget documents.

1See Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, Population Representation 2004, Chapter 2-16. See also Department of Education, Educational and Labor Market Performance of GED Recipients, ‘The GED and the U.S. Armed Forces,’ February, 1998.
2See Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, Population Representation 2005, Executive Summary.
3Both of these correlations were statisticallly significant at the .02 level or better.
4Office of Management and Budget, ‘Program Assessment Rating Tool, Department of Defense Recruiting Program,’ last updated, August 13, 2007.

 

( categories: )

Comments

OK, I call bulls***t on this

Fri, 06/20/2008 - 03:56 — Anonymous (not verified)

OK, I call bull***t on this one. I am currently serving as an Army recruiter, and was not a volunteer. This 3 year "special duty" has pretty much put my otherwise promising career on hold, so I have plenty to be disgruntled about. I recruit in the North-East and fall under the same command as the Worcester area recruiters. Yes, we do shady crap. No, I'm not proud of that fact, but it's not to the extremes that are outlined above. True we have applicants conceal minor medical issues, and the occasional minor law charge (like tickets). BUT, they all go through a full physical at MEPS, which is administered by civilian doctors who work for DOD, not the Army. If the med issues are so minor that they are not caught during a thorough physical, then are they really going to hinder a person's service? Doubtful. All applicants are finger-printed which is then run through the FBI national database. If ANYTHING shows up that the applicant did not previously disclose, then they are immediately discharged. There are multiple systems in place to keep us honest. Furthermore, MEPCOM falls under DOD, and not a particular branch, as stated above. This is so they remain impartial during the screening process. You cannot just get one of your buddies to look the other way and get someone in, it doesn't work that way.
Ringer = end of your career. No one will protect you for that one. That's it, you're done, bye bye. Enough said.
If this guy was breaking into other services offices, and sleeping with female applicants then he has integrity issues. I have been out here almost 3 years and have seen a lot of flirting and things of this nature, but I am yet to personally know someone who has actually slept with an applicant. Keep in mind the Army is predominantly male, and therefore most recruiters are male. Hey, guess what? Guys have been lieing about who they slept with for centuries, and in the testosterone driven military do you think it's any different? C'mon, don't add to the bull***t stereotypes about recruiters. Yes there's some dirt-balls out here and there are some car salesman types, but to imply that it's everybody does a dis-service to the uniform.
And for the civilians who want to talk s**t about recruiters, take the f***ing yellow ribbon off your car!

Recruitment vs. the Draft

Fri, 03/21/2008 - 01:01 — T. W. Eakin (not verified)

When considering the results of decisions made by "our leaders" in past conflicts and digesting the data presented here as well as observations of current conditions, one must contemplate the negative consequences of conscription or The Draft. I was only a couple of years too young for Vietnam, but I can't stop myself from seeing the results of using intelligence as goal in putting soldiers in the field. To lose 58,000 of our most intelligent (high quality) Americans and leaving those who "scored" lower at home cannot be allowed to happen again. I do not want to offend anyone and I have total respect for those who have died for our country, but I can't be persuaded that those decisions were good for us or our future generations.

Having been a recruiter

Tue, 03/11/2008 - 08:16 — Anonymous (not verified)

Having been a recruiter myself, I can say that it is a hard life for someone to live. Not just for the hours that you have to work, the number of days per week, and the endless hours of phone calls. The everyday decisions that you have to make can wear you down. In life there is the black area that you do not enter, the white area where you should always operate from and that grey area. If you were a recruiter then you know the grey area that I am refering to. I only did two years of recruiting and I respect my fellow service member (all services) who have done a tour or two. It took me a few months to get focused in recruiting because I have always been an introvert in the since that I was a shy person. I truly had to choose between success and failure. Being a successful recruiter meant that I had to become a person that put his feeling aside and do what it takes to get someone to join. Being a failure meant that no matter what I was going to be open and honest with each and every person that I talk to. I chose to be a failure. I am not saying that every recruiter experiences the same feelings that I had. This is just a personal account of what I dealt with. Because I chose to be this way my career was in serious jeopardy. I think it is when my career became threatened that I became stronger and I stuck with my plan to be open and honest. The one time I did not keep to the plan I payed heavily for it. I was ashamed, humiliated, sad and down right discussed with myself. I felt like that and I did what I did not to help the Army and it's numbers but to help the recruit. It is a hard life. So I say to my brothers out there in the field. Never let them preasure you to do something that is against who you are. I made it out of recruiting with a gold badge (with two saphires), an ARCOM and a lot of friends.

Army

Mon, 02/18/2008 - 12:49 — Ann Garrison (not verified)

The language in this report is terribly unclear. You're talking about DOD recruiting statistics, making me think you're talking about all forces, but then I suddenly realize you're talking about the Army alone.

Why would anyone even do a study of Army recruiting statistics alone, for the general public, with regard to national priorities, instead of a review of all forces recruiting statistics?

This seems to be a big waste of time for anyone but a military insider, though the details written by the commenter who'd worked as a recruiter seemed quite significant.

Could you elaborate on this

Thu, 02/28/2008 - 05:53 — Ann Garrison (not verified)

Could you elaborate on this statement, about the U.S.Army: ". . .they are the largest branch of the armed services and they constitute the vast majority of the people who are fighting in Iraq."

Also, I believe the Armed Services now offers incentives for going "from blue to green," meaning Navy or Air Force to Army, which could mean combat on the ground.

elaborate?

Wed, 03/05/2008 - 16:24 — pschwartz (not verified)

I'm happy to try to answer any specific questions.
Best, Pam

Why Army stats only

Tue, 02/26/2008 - 17:25 — pschwartz (not verified)

NPP's report focuses on the Army because they are the largest branch of the armed services and they constitute the vast majority of the people who are fighting in Iraq. Incidentally, we have asked for data from the Marines and they have failed to respond to our Freedom of Information Act request. We will keep trying to hold them accountable.

Disgruntle

Sat, 02/02/2008 - 23:39 — Anonymous (not verified)

I appreciate all of you that have served and did your time in the military, but one of the reasons that recruiting struggles is because of you disgruntle ex-soldiers. Every time you sit there and bash the Army do you really think you are helping the soldier that is over in Iraq do you think that you just encouraged someone else to walk into a recruiting office looking to serve their country. I have been in the Army for just over 10 years and yes there are many things wrong with the Army but I can tell you my recruiter never told me that the Army was perfect. Maybe yours did maybe you had this grand vision of the Army being like heaven or something. I don't know what you were thinking, but I can tell you I don't know of any job that is perfect. If there is a perfect job out there, if you could inform me of that I would appreciuate it very much. Large corporations usually care even less for their people then the Army does. The Army is a large corporation with a mission to accomplish. Does it make it right the way some people are treated no!!! but what are you doing to fix the issue besides crying about it. I get tired of hearing disgruntle soldiers whine about the Army majority of disgruntle soldiers were not steller soldiers in the first place and feel like the world should revolve around them anyways. I don't enjoy the stories about injured vets not getting all of the treatment that they deserve or not getting what they need, but instead of whining how about helping out. I agree kids need to be informed about what they are getting themselves into and we don't need to sugar coat anything, but I grew up a half hour North of Detroit, MI and I can tell you I was more scared to walk around there at night then I was to walk around in the mountains of Afghanistan. So stop whining about what recruiters are doing these kids have so many more ways to verify things now with the internet then I ever did 10 years ago about the military. The Army is what you make it no more or no less.

the fix

Mon, 01/28/2008 - 17:37 — Anonymous (not verified)

Here is a solution for you. Every student who does not receive a GED or high school diploma are enrolled in military high school. Once they pass they then are enrolled in 3-4 years of service. Everyone gets educated, crime drops and the military meets its recruiting needs. If you don't want to go into the military don't give your teachers and parents such a hard time and aplly yourself in school while you have the option.

well honestly i feel like

Thu, 02/21/2008 - 19:08 — Anonymous (not verified)

well honestly i feel like since they didnt graduate from high school or atleast get a GED then they should be put into military high school ecpecially if there messing up there lives and others around. they shouldnt be forced to into but if they are in jail doin nothing then they need to do something productive with their and not just waste it. so basically what im trying to say is dont force them into it, unless their doing violent things

Your report is already being

Wed, 01/23/2008 - 18:10 — Anonymous

Your report is already being badmouthed and heavily discounted by a number of pundits and military-aware commentators because your numbers for percentage of HSDG recruits are lower than those reported by the Army.

To counter the criticism, it would be useful to ensure every one is using the same numbers, the same definitions and the same timeframe.

First, the Army recruiting year runs the same as the federal Fiscal Year, i.e., Oct 1 to Sep 30. Thus, the Army closed out its 2007 recruiting year on Sep 30, 2007.

Second, the services use two numbers when discussing recruiting results: new contracts and accessions. Basically, an accession is when a recruit reports to basic training. A new contract is when a recruit signs the enlistment contract. For any given recruiting year, total new contracts do not have to equal total accessions.

For any given recruit, being a new contract in a given recruiting year does not mean being an accession in that same recruiting year. In fact, the services strive to enter each new recruiting year with a percentage of the accession goal for that year already under contract in what is called the Delayed Entry Program (DEP) pool.

When mid-October rolls around each year and the Services report their recruiting results, the either limit the numbers to accessions or focus nearly exclusively on accessions.

The fact that accessions and new contracts are not the same allowed us (when I was in recruiting) to "make adjustments" as the end of the recruiting year approached in order to meet accession goals. For example, in a year when my Service looked like it was going to miss our target for high school grad percentages, we simply swapped a few hundred of our HS-grad DEP'ers scheduled to go to training after Oct 1st for some of our non-grad DEP'ers scheduled for training in Aug and Sep. Voila, HS-grad goal was made.

Finally, every year I was in recruiting some number of non-grad "prospects" (likely recruits) managed to become HS-grads between the time they first spoke with a recruiter and the time they actually signed a contract. I recall one recruiter getting busted when it was discovered that his brother, who owned a printing business, was providing him with very genuine looking diplomas and transcripts. I suspect this kind of thing still goes on.

The Army (as of a couple years ago, anyway) had a program whereby new recruits, once in training, could "correct" any "errors" in their records. If the errors were not disqualifying (such as a felony criminal record or specifc mental or physical defects), the recruit was generally allowed to continue training, although perhaps with a change in their job assignment. Failing to correct "errors" was grounds for legal action later against the recruit.

Assuming the above two paragraphs describe situations that still occur, it is important to know where your data was collected - at the recruiting center or MEPS or at the training base. The Army's official recruiting numbers, those touted every October, come from data collected by recruiters.

Clarification

Fri, 01/25/2008 - 17:39 — anita

Just to clarify: As our report indicates, we used FOIA to obtain non-prior service recruits for fiscal year 2007.  The data were obtained from Army Recruiting Command and were for accessions, not contracts.

Thanks for the

Fri, 01/25/2008 - 20:03 — Anonymous (not verified)

Thanks for the clarification.

Hmmm... why the disparity between the percentages from your analysis and those reported by the Army? Maybe Army was using new contracts. Perhaps they combine Army and Army Reserve data. Maybe they include accessions for OCS and other officer/warrant officer programs in their numbers.

Services used to have to report recruiting and accession results to Congress every year. The combined report was compiled in Dec and delivered to Congress in Jan (if I recall correctly). It used to be broken out by officer/enlisted, sex, ethnicity educational attainment, ASVAB category (I through IV) and accessions/new contracts. Don't recall it being broken down by geography. If it is still produced it might be another good source of data for you.

Bell Curve

Thu, 01/24/2008 - 02:04 — Anonymous

It is clear to see that the Military recruitment statistics closely follow that of a Bell Curve. In 1994, it was argued that IQ played a more decisive role in predicting economic outcomes (financial income, job performance) than parents socioeconomic status or educational level.

The statistics paint a very grime picture for the US. Education is not working and is failing to meet even the basic requirements of society.

The BIG question that has to be answered is what changed?

It is clear that the goberment (DoD) has actively been collecting and reviewing these trends over a period of time, at least a decade, and that the numbers are sliding off the chart in the wrong direction. The fact of the matter is that the AFVT test is a form of an IQ test and the recruits are scoring very low on this test as well. It is testing reasoning and logic skills. Yikes!

With the Presidential Primaries in full swing the politicians are busy selling the voters on how they will invest more or our money into education. This alledgedly will solve the problem, at least the teachers unions believe so. Ask a teacher or school administrator and you will get a whole different perspective!

Do you think that anybody will point out the obvious conclusion that the problem is not financial funding?

The one thing that takes my breath away in the whole matter is that these folks are being given guns and access to very sophisticated weapons systems.

Do these current recruits possess enough smarts and common sense to use the equipment in a safe and responsible manner?

The military of the past emphasized individual responsibility and the ability to use logic and reasoning to make sound decisions. The current military and future military are counting on video games and virtual reality simulators to condition soldiers on what decisions to make and when. This is where the shoot first and ask questions later doctrine comes from. Take a look at all of the recent stories about police tazering citizens.

Do you see any correlation?

U.S. Army Recruiting

Wed, 01/23/2008 - 12:14 — Paul Boyce, U.S. Army, Washington, D.C. (not verified)

The U.S. Army's 2008 recruiting year started off strong over the past four months. As of December 28, 2007, the U.S. Army recruited 10,136 Soldiers for the Active Army and 6,514 Soldiers for the Army Reserve. (Active Army recruiting goal for Fiscal Year 2008 is 80,000 Soldiers and 26,500 for the U.S. Army Reserve.) The great news story is that more than 107,000 young men and women chose to enlist in the Army and Army Reserve in Fiscal Year 2007, during a protracted conflict. The young Americans who enlist from all areas and incomes across this nation know and understand they are joining a warrior culture and willingly accept the inherent risks of national military service. A strong belief in the value of selfless service is what keeps people enlisting and re-enlisting in the Army. Enlistment education quality remains high: last year more than 3,200 new recruits enlisted with their Bachelor’s degrees, 250 recruits had their Master’s degrees and 20 enlisted after having earned their doctoral degrees.

While our numbers don't match this group's findings, the U.S. Army and Defense Department already discussed the number of recruits with school diplomas last Oct. 10. See transcript at the following DoD web site: http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4054

During that Pentagon press conference, Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness David S.C. Chu said Oct. 10, 2007: "I want to speak to those quality standards very briefly. We set three key quality standards in the Department of Defense and have since the mid-1990s. These standards come out of 30-plus years of experience with what works in the volunteer force. We aim to have 90 percent of the new enlistees -- meaning those without prior service, the new enlistees in the Department of Defense -- have a high school diploma as a measure of whether they will succeed in our enterprise. We aim to have 60 percent or more score above average on the Armed Forces Qualification Test, the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery. That's our version of the SAT, you might say. And we aim to have less than 4 percent score in Mental Category IV -- that's between the 10th and the 30th percentile -- on that same examination. In other words, we aim for the military to draw an above-average slice of America into its enlisted ranks, that’s setting aside the officers, for whom we set even higher standards and who comprise about one-eighth of our total strength. And we made those standards in all force areas, with one exception. The Army, the active Army, did not meet the high school diploma standard. It recruited, in terms of non-prior service enlistees, 79 percent with high school diplomas. That's approximately the national average, and obviously we'd like to do just a bit better. But we're proud of the record overall. And it means the department as a whole met that record."

Retention of these Soldiers also exceeds all expectations, particularly when you consider the volunteer Army and our Nation face a historic challenge during this six-year period of protracted war. Last fiscal year, 2007, the active U.S. Army exceeded its retention goals with 112% of projected numbers raising their hands to stay with their units; with 119% of expected numbers for Reserve Soldiers re-enlisting and 100% of goal for the National Guard Soldiers proudly staying with their fellow Soldiers.

Public support for our Soldiers remains strong across this proud nation. More Americans should consider stepping forward to answer this call to duty and serve, and support a youth’s decision to join our Army.

Another Failure of the Iraq War

Thu, 01/24/2008 - 19:57 — anita

Since 2005, the Army has had difficulty in meeting either its quota for number of new recruits or its benchmarks pertaining to the quality of those recruits. The Army is quick to dispute the numbers of a new analysis released by National Priorities Project (NPP). The Army claims that there are a slightly higher percentage of recruits in 2007 that have regular high school diplomas than NPP’s study shows. NPP obtained the raw data directly from Army Recruiting Command and followed DoD procedures in the classification of recruits.

 

More importantly, the number published by NPP is a more accurate representation of who is entering the Army. The number cited by the Army is for those who signed contracts. NPP's number is for those that actually became 'accessions.' Many recruits back out of the contract before accessing into the Army. If we want to know about the Army, it is more helpful to study those who actually accessed, rather than the larger number of those who signed contracts.

 

Nevertheless, the Army does not deny that the proportion of recruits with regular high school diplomas has precipitously declined.

 

A regular high school diploma is the Department of Defense’s best indicator of whether a recruit will make it through a first term of enlistment, according to decades of research. Fewer recruits with regular high school diplomas now means higher recruiting and training costs later.

 

The decline speaks to the larger failure of the Iraq War. Youth increasingly realize that the war was unnecessary, and if they have other economic alternatives, they pursue those rather than putting their lives on the line. The long-term implications of recruiting problems today could be significant. But a new course in foreign policy will restore the confidence of youth in government and the military.

As a veteran from the 80's

Wed, 01/23/2008 - 08:27 — Anonymous (not verified)

As a veteran from the 80's I'll tell you why recruitment and retention is down.The Army doesn't take care of the troops.VA healthcare,being experimented on,depleted(it is not!)uranium poisoning.Being forced to recieve risky,if not criminal vaccinations.Getting ripped off and lied to by every link in the chain of command.The list is quite a bit longer.In addition,these brave younge men and women swore an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States.Perhaps we should return them all home to defend our southern border and free us from the abomination our present situation.The people are tired of getting lied to constantly.We know it's all a sham.

SAME OLD ARMY STUFF

Tue, 01/22/2008 - 18:44 — EX-MILITARY Recruiter (not verified)

When I recruited for service (X) in Worcester MA, I saw first hand just how underhanded Army recruiters were - and are even today.
Besides breaking into adjoining sister-service offices in order to steal qualified applicants names & numbers (This is on record with the local T&G newspaper & the courthouse), they routinely used "RINGERS" to take the ASVAB test for their applicants.
A Ringer is a paid-applicant whom the underhanded recruiters retain in order to take tests for other "less-qualified" testers. The Ringer takes the REAL applicants drivers license to a local testing facility (normally staffed by an older retired person) where they take the 3 hour paper test. Normally, the ringer is used for African-American applicants because the test proctor is uncomfortable challenging the photograph.
True, Army recruiters routinely used their Government Vehicles for personal use, and had sexual relations with female applicants. But, because the MILITARY ENTRANCE COMMAND (MEPCOM) (its where the recruiters bring applicants for physical & mental examinations for military service) is literally "run" by the Army, they had the "keys to the kingdom" - esp. after hours.
Although NOT recruiters, Army personnel working at the MEPS could remove or add important physical documentation at the behest of their brothers-in-arms working in the field - an UN-qualified applicant could suddenly become QUALIFIED.
Make no mistake, MOST ARMY recruiters are: (A) Non-volunteers (or volunteers to avoid heading back overseas for another 15 months),(B) "Coached" by their higher HQ to be as RUTHLESS as possible in pursuit of their "Mission Box" (quota), (C) Work Long Long hours (12 to 14 a day 6 to 7 days a week is NOT uncommon), (D) Work with LITTLE oversite at their job - so breaking into an office does not feel WRONG to them, (E) WIll NEVER be disciplined by their higher HQ for underhanded, illegal recruiting tactics (never ever) - unless the ARMY RIC murders an applicant, the Sergeant will ALWAYS be protected by his command.
This was the state of affairs in 1995 - 1998, I'll bet it's MUCH WORSE now! And you're surprised? LOL