Skip Navigation
| Skip Navigation |
|
|
|
|
|
The appropriate level and structure for military pay has been a much-debated topic, particularly since the advent of the All-Volunteer Force in 1973. A 1982 report, citing the findings in a survey of youths' knowledge of and attitudes toward military service, asserted that young persons grossly underestimate recruit pay. Based on these findings some in the defense community have suggested that it might be worthwhile to advertise recruit pay more fully, perhaps funding this increased advertising through limits on recruit pay raises. At the request of the Subcommittee on Defense of the House Committee on Appropriations, CBO has analyzed these survey findings on pay to determine if they support the need for more advertising.
The paper was prepared by Daniel F. Huck, formerly of the CBO staff, and Julie Carr under the general supervision of Robert F. Hale of the Congressional Budget Office's National Security and International Affairs Division. CBO is indebted to the staff of the Defense Manpower Data Center, especially to Michael Laurence for his review of an earlier draft and Helen Hagan, Gwenn O'Neil, J.J. Miller, and John Richards for their extensive data processing support. Francis Pierce edited the paper, assisted by Nancy H. Brooks.
In accordance with CBO's mandate, this paper presents the results of
CBO's analysis but does not make recommendations.
June 1983
SUMMARY
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER II. SURVEY FINDINGS ON KNOWLEDGE OF RECRUIT PAY
CHAPTER III. THE ROLE OF ADVERTISING
APPENDIX MILITARY PAY AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER SURVEY VARIABLES
| TABLES | |
| 1. | DISTRIBUTION OF MALE SURVEY RESPONDENTS ESTIMATING MONTHLY BASIC PAY FOR RECRUITS |
| 2. | NONRESPONSE RATES AMONG NEW RECRUITS TO ALTERNATIVE FORMS OF A QUESTION REQUIRING AN ESTIMATE OF THEIR BASE PAY |
| 3. | MALE YOUTH PERCEPTIONS OF WHERE "GOOD INCOME" IS MORE LIKELY TO BE ACHIEVED |
| 4. | EFFECT OF BEING TOLD ACTUAL RECRUIT PAY ON RESPONDENTS' INTEREST IN MILITARY SERVICE |
| 5. | CHANGE IN ATTITUDE TOWARD MILITARY SERVICE AFTER BEING INFORMED OF RECRUIT PAY, BY DEGREE OF INTEREST IN MILITARY SERVICE |
| A-1. | DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF GROUPS WITH POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE PROPENSITIES TO MILITARY SERVICE |
| A-2. | CAREER EXPECTATIONS AMONG MALE HIGH SCHOOL SENIORS |
| A-3. | TREND IN PROPENSITY FOR MILITARY SERVICE |
| A-4. | TRENDS IN PROPENSITY OF MALE HIGH SCHOOL SENIORS FOR SPECIFIC MILITARY SERVICES |
| A-5. | MALE HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE, I-IIIA ENLISTMENT CONTRACTS SIGNED IN FISCAL YEAR 1977-1982 |
| A-6. | CONTACT WITH A RECRUIT (LAST SIX MONTHS) AND KNOWLEDGE OF RECRUIT PAY AMONG MALE HIGH SCHOOL SENIORS |
Intuition, supported by a considerable body of empirical research over the past decade, suggests that changes in military pay can affect both recruitment and retention of better-qualified military personnel. Recently, however, doubts have been raised about the sensitivity of recruitment to entry-level pay. Last year, for example, some pay bills introduced in the Congress proposed not increasing pay for new recruits but targeting increases toward the career force. Similar bills have been introduced this year.
Some evidence that could be used to support limits on recruit pay raises appeared in a 1982 report sponsored by the Department of Defense, which analyzed youth attitudes toward military service. The report found that youth substantially underestimate the amount a new recruit earns per month. The report asserts that correcting these widespread and marked misconceptions about military pay might be the single most useful communications strategy for attracting new recruits. This conclusion, if correct, would lend support to those who believe that, instead of continued increases in recruit pay to sustain quality enlistments, these funds could be better used to expand advertising in an effort to raise awareness of recruit pay.
To explore this issue, CBO examined the survey data upon which the report was based. CBO's analysis found that the conclusion that young people substantially underestimate the true value of recruit pay represents too broad a generalization. About half of those surveyed failed to give an estimate. Among the respondents, the median estimate of pay was $495 a month, close to the true value of $550. The earlier report apparently erred by assuming that non-respondents estimated pay at zero.
While the median estimate was close to the true value, many young people did underestimate pay. Among those who responded, only about one-third estimated recruit pay accurately (defined in this study as estimates between $500 and $600 a month). About three-quarters of the remaining respondents underestimated pay. Moreover, more than half of all those surveyed tended to believe that civilian jobs offer better prospects of earning a good income than in military service. Even among those who indicated some or great interest in military service, a substantial fraction (about 40 percent) thought that civilian jobs offered better earning prospects.
The recent success in attracting military recruits--only part of which can be explained by high unemployment--suggests that military compensation is roughly equivalent to pay in the civilian sector. Thus these survey findings could imply that advertising designed to correct young people's misconceptions about pay would stimulate more enlistments.
Other data in the same survey suggest, however, that it might not. Those who were asked to estimate recruit pay and subsequently were told its actual value did not necessarily display more interest in military service. Among those already favorably inclined, such knowledge tended to strengthen interest in military service. Among others, however, the effect was quite small. This implies that advertising of recruit pay would be unlikely to stimulate interest in military service except among those already so inclined.
Moreover, numerous studies have shown that reductions in pay will reduce the number of better-qualified young persons willing to enter the military. Thus, if additional advertising comes at the expense of pay raises, recruiting could actually be hurt.
What then is the proper role of advertising, especially advertising of pay? Early in the recruiting process, advertising is probably a useful way of stimulating interest among potential candidates and prompting them to-further explore possible enlistment opportunities. At this early stage in the enlistment process, advertising should probably concentrate on exposing youth to a wide variety of benefits and attributes generic to the services, including pay but also skill training, improved employment opportunities after return to civilian life, and possibly educational benefits. Conveying accurate information about military pay, the survey results suggest, is important in convincing those already interested in the military to make a final, favorable decision. Yet advertising alone cannot "close the sale". A definitive explanation of military benefits such as pay in an effort to induce an enlistment should best be left to a recruiter or guidance counselor.
This document is available in its entirety in PDF.