Recruit Quality and Enlisted Performance

1
Recruit Quality and Enlisted Performance

• Edward Schmitz
• Michael Moskowitz
• Center for Naval Analyses
• May 6, 2008

2
Recruit Quality and Performance

• Recruiting costs are driven by the quality of
  people recruited
• Current Navy enlisted quality education and test
  scores is at an all-time high
• What will be the impact on first term performance
  and recruiting budgets if quality is reduced?

3
Key findings

• We identified three major policy levers that
  affect recruiting and performance
• Percent non-graduate/GED
• Minimum AFQT enlistment standard
• Time in the Delayed Entry Program
• Recruiting policies should focus on maintaining a
  healthy DEP pool
• Increasing non-graduates (especially GEDs) should
  be considered if recruiting difficulties persist

4
Today well cover

• A model of recruiting policies and first term
  outcomes
• Key results from behavioral models
• Application of models to the current recruiting
  environment
• Discussion of policy recommendations

5
First Term Policies and Outcomes
Contract
Access
Serve
Perform

• Quality
• Recruiting budget
• DEP time

Who enters active duty?
Who completes first term?
Who gets promoted?
6
Model estimation

• Three behavioral models
• DEP completion (accession)
• 48 month completion
• Promotion to E5
• Methodology logistic regression
• Data sources
• DEP completion FY99-06 contracts
• Completion promotion FY99-03 accessions

7
Today well cover

• A model of recruiting policies and first term
  outcomes
• Key results from behavioral models
• Application of models to the current recruiting
  environment
• Discussion of policy recommendations

8
Variables controlled for in regressions

• Environmental
• Unemployment
• Wages
• Rating
• Cohort
• NRD (location)
• Incentives
• Demographics

• Policy
• Education
• AFQT
• Time in DEP

9
Time in DEP, Education and AFQT affect different
performance measures
10
Time in DEP Reduces Accession Probabilities for
Graduates, but Increases First-term Survival
11
AFQT is a Strong Predictor of Promotionwhen
rating, cohort, and time in service are
controlled for
12
Today well cover

• A model of recruiting policies and first term
  outcomes
• Key results from behavioral models
• Application of models to the current recruiting
  environment
• Discussion of policy recommendations

13
How should the Navy respond to current recruiting
challenges?

• Recruiting missions are increasing for FY08 and
  beyond
• Additional recruiters are planned, but have not
  yet entered production
• Should the Navy
• Continue to draw down DEP?
• Lower AFQT standards (e.g., from 35 to 31)?
• Accept more non-graduates (B cells)?

14
Survival from contract to promotion at end of
first term
15
Cost savings from alternatives

• Reduce high quality recruits by 5
• CNRC would recruit 1,950 fewer
• Marginal cost per recruit 25,400
• Savings of about 50 million
• Shrink DEP pool by 7 of accession mission
• Eliminates need to recruit 5 A cells
• Also saves about 50 million

16
Lowering the AFQT standard has large impact on
job performance, small attrition difference
DEP savings would be for only 1 year
17
The C cell- B cell attrition difference has been
shrinking over the last decade
48-month First-term Attrition4-Quarter Moving
Average by Quality Cell
18
Policies need to focus on maintaining DEP as well
as enlistment standards

• Keeping sufficient DEP time improves person-job
  match, motivation
• Job performance (measured by E5 promotion rates)
  is affected by both AFQT and time in DEP
• Attrition differential between high AFQT nongrads
  and low AFQT grads has decreased