Based on indications of increased difficulty in meeting recruiting goals, in spring 1994 the Army Chief of Staff and the Deputy of Secretary of Defense asked RAND to examine recent trends in the recruiting market and to assess their implications for meeting accession requirements. An initial examination of the 1994 market concluded that the pool of interested high-quality young men was adequate to meet DoD needs. But the system appeared to be less effective in tapping into this supply of potential enlistees. The longer-term analysis, reported here, confirms the reduced effectiveness of recruiting, and also finds that the significant increase in FY97's accessions required to sustain the postdrawdown force, coupled with a smaller decline in youth's interest in military service, translates into a possible supply shortage. The decline in recruiting productivity is most likely due to a number of factors; until they are addressed, meeting accession goals will require a greater level of recruiting resources or different management practices. The researchers offer two short-term actions for consideration: (1) increase recruiting resources and (2) reduce the requirement for high-quality non-prior-service male accessions by recruiting more women, accepting more prior-service accessions, or changing the quality goals. Longer-term actions should be aimed at trying to enhance the cost-effectiveness of recruiting in the postdrawdown environment. This could include: rethinking recruiting management and the cost benefit of alternative recruit quality levels; considering more marketing strategies and enlistment options, particularly ones that would improve the military's ability to recruit persons interested in attending college; and optimizing the match between monthly accession goals and training infrastructure costs.

This report describes recruiting trends through early 1995, focusing on changes in youth enlistment propensity and the Army's ability to "convert" the potential supply of recruits into actual enlistments. Using updated survey data and methods of analyzing propensity, it concludes that the potential supply of recruits remains higher in FY95 than it was during 1989, when recruiting results were good. However, the latest survey results indicate some downturn in youth interest in military service. When that downturn is coupled with the large increase in accession requirements during FY96 and FY97, the ratio of supply to demand for high-quality enlistees could fall short of its predrawdown levels. Furthermore, survey data show a drop in the rate at which potential high-quality recruits discuss military service with key "influencers" (such as family and friends) and fewer contacts between recruiters and high school students (perhaps due to cuts in numbers of recruiters, their reduced presence in high schools, or a shift in focus from current students to graduates). Taken together, these results suggest future difficulties in meeting accession goals, which should be countered by increases in recruiting resources such as advertising, educational benefits, and recruiters.

Based on indications of increased difficulty in meeting recruiting goals, in spring 1994 the Army Chief of Staff and the Deputy of Secretary of Defense asked RAND to examine recent trends in the recruiting market and to assess their implications for meeting accession requirements. An initial examination of the 1994 market concluded that the pool of interested high-quality young men was adequate to meet DoD needs. But the system appeared to be less effective in tapping into this supply of potential enlistees. The longer-term analysis, reported here, confirms the reduced effectiveness of recruiting, and also finds that the significant increase in FY97's accessions required to sustain the post drawdown force, coupled with a smaller decline in youth's interest in military service, translates into a possible supply shortage. The decline in recruiting productivity is most likely due to a number of factors; until they are addressed, meeting accession goals will require a greater level of recruiting resources or different management practices. The researchers offer two short-term actions for consideration: (1) increase recruiting resources and (2) reduce the requirement for high-quality non-prior-service male accessions by recruiting more women, accepting more prior-service accessions, or changing the quality goals. Longer-term actions should be aimed at trying to enhance the cost-effectiveness of recruiting in the post drawdown environment. This could include: rethinking recruiting management and the cost benefit of alternative recruit quality levels; considering more marketing strategies and enlistment options, particularly ones that would improve the military's ability to recruit persons interested in attending college; and optimizing the match between monthly accession goals and training infrastructure costs.

In 1994, based on some worrisome trends and reports about changes in the recruiting environment, senior officials at the Department of Defense (DoD) expressed concern about DoD's ability to recruit sufficient numbers of high-quality youth (i.e., those who score well on written aptitude exams and have high school diplomas). Recruiting resources had been cut after the Gulf War, and reports circulated that youth had less interest in joining the military. Problems in meeting recruiting goals seemed to confirm this reported decline in interest. The Army Chief of Staff and the Deputy Secretary of Defense asked RAND to first make a quick assessment of the recruiting situation and then carry out a longer-term, in-depth analysis to examine recruiting trends, identify potential problems, and recommend ways to counter them. The results of this research have been published in several reports produced jointly by the National Defense Research Institute and the Arroyo Center at RAND. The results have also been presented in numerous high-level briefings; the audiences included the Deputy Secretary of Defense, the service secretaries, and other senior civilians and uniformed officers in DoD. The research has had a direct policy impact. For example, briefings in 1994 helped shape decisions by the Office of the Secretary of Defense on recruiting resources. In 1997, the Army made several recruiting changes that were consistent with the recommendations of RAND's longer-term analysis. It increased funding for enlistment incentives, such as the Army College Fund, and for other recruiting resources, such as recruiters and advertising, and it reduced its need for high-quality males without prior service by substituting other kinds of recruits.

In the spring of 1994, the Army Chief of Staff and the Deputy Secretary of Defense asked RAND to examine recent trends in the recruiting market and assess their implications for meeting accession requirements. The request for assistance came about because of indications of increased difficulty in meeting recruiting goals. It consisted of two parts: (1) a quick initial examination of the trends and (2) a longer-term research agenda to study the recruiting outlook in depth. The results of the preliminary examination were briefed in May 1994 and are described in MR-549-A/OSD, Recent Recruiting Trends and Their Implications: Preliminary Analysis and Recommendations (Asch and Orvis, 1994) This report presents results from the longer-term analysis. In it we describe recruiter incentive plans in each service and how they have changed over time. Its findings should interest planners and policymakers concerned with recruiting. Additional results from the longer-term analysis are described in MR-677-A/OSD, Military Recruiting Outlook: Recent Trends in Enlistment Propensity and Conversion of Potential Enlisted Supply (Orvis, Sastry, and McDonald, 1996) and other documents that will be forthcoming as part of this project. This research was conducted within the Manpower and Training Program, part of RAND's Arroyo Center, and within the Forces and Resources Policy Center, part of RAND's National Defense Research Institute. The Arroyo Center and the National Defense Research Institute are both federally funded research and development centers, the first sponsored by the United States Army and the second by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, and the defense agencies.

It is anticipated that in the coming decade the Department of Defense (DoD) will field and test new advertising and recruiting initiatives designed to improve the recruiting outlook. The DoD needs a comprehensive research and evaluation strategy based on sound research principles that will ensure valid, reliable, and relevant results to discover the most promising policies. The primary objective of this book is to help the DoD improve its research on advertising and recruiting policies. Evaluating Military Advertising and Recruiting: Theory and Methodology presents a framework for evaluation that links different types of research questions to various research methodologies. The framework identifies four major categories of research questions and four broad methodological approaches. The first category of research question asks "What does a target audience see as attractive or unattractive features of a program?" It is well suited to examination via qualitative methods, such as focus groups, unstructured or open-ended surveys, and interviews. The second category of research question asks "What is the effect of a program on specified attitudes or behavioral intentions?" It is well suited to examination via surveys, experiments, and quasi experiments. The third category of research question asks "What is the effect of a proposed new program on enlistment?" It is well suited to examination via experiments and quasi experiments. The final category of research question asks "What is the effect of an existing program on enlistment?" It is well suited to examination via econometric modeling.

In the spring of 1994, the Army Chief of Staff and the Deputy Secretary of Defense asked RAND to examine recent trends in the recruiting market and assess their implications for meeting accession requirements. The request for assistance came about because of indications of increased difficulty in meeting recruiting goals. It consisted of two parts: (1) a quick initial examination of the trends and (2) a longer-term research agenda to study the recruiting outlook in depth. The results of the preliminary examination were briefed in May 1994 and are described in MR-549-A/OSD, Recent Recruiting Trends and Their Implications: Preliminary Analysis and Recommendations (Asch and Orvis, 1994) This report presents results from the longer-term analysis. In it we describe recruiter incentive plans in each service and how they have changed over time. Its findings should interest planners and policymakers concerned with recruiting. Additional results from the longer-term analysis are described in MR-677-A/OSD, Military Recruiting Outlook: Recent Trends in Enlistment Propensity and Conversion of Potential Enlisted Supply (Orvis, Sastry, and McDonald, 1996) and other documents that will be forthcoming as part of this project. This research was conducted within the Manpower and Training Program, part of RAND's Arroyo Center, and within the Forces and Resources Policy Center, part of RAND's National Defense Research Institute. The Arroyo Center and the National Defense Research Institute are both federally funded research and development centers, the first sponsored by the United States Army and the second by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, and the defense agencies.