Monday, April 10, 2006
Spinning the Army's retention rate
"Army surpassing year's retention goal by 15%"
Two of every three eligible soldiers continue to re-enlist, putting the Army, which has endured most of the fighting in Iraq, ahead of its annual goal.
The Army was 15% ahead of its re-enlistment goal of 34,668 for the first six months of fiscal year 2006, which ended March 31. More than 39,900 soldiers had re-enlisted, according to figures scheduled to be released today by the Army.
Strong retention has helped the Army offset recruiting that has failed to meet its targets as the war in Iraq has made it harder to attract new soldiers. The Army fell 8% short of its goal of recruiting 80,000 soldiers in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, although it is exceeding its goal this year.
How does the reporter know that it was "the war in Iraq" that made it harder to attract new soldiers? There is no support for this theory in the story. The reporter -- Tom Vanden Brook -- just assumed facts not in evidence and his editor let him get away with it. If the Iraq war were the reason for poor recruitment last year, why has recruitment improved this year, when the news coverage of the war is so much more defeatist?
The New York Times, however, managed to discover the kernal of bad news in the Army's retention record and featured it in a front page story bearing the deeply misleading headline "Young Officers Leaving Army at a High Rate".
Young Army officers, including growing numbers of captains who leave as soon as their initial commitment is fulfilled, are bailing out of active-duty service at rates that have alarmed senior officers. Last year, more than a third of the West Point class of 2000 left active duty at the earliest possible moment, after completing their five-year obligation.
It was the second year in a row of worsening retention numbers, apparently marking the end of a burst of patriotic fervor during which junior officers chose continued military service at unusually high rates.
So, it isn't really that "young officers are leaving the Army at a high rate." They are remaining in the Army at historical rates, rather than at the unusually high levels that prevailed in 2001-2003.
Sheesh. Is there any wonder why people perceive the mainstream media as anti-military?
9 Comments:
By 
Cassandra, at
Mon Apr 10, 12:28:00 PM:
Yes, well these are the same people who looked at a single truck crash and extrapolated from there to wonder if this was the end of a five-month long trend of declining war casualities, TH.
One...day. Out of five months of declining casualties, during which they'd never once wondered if things were looking up.
Bias, what bias?
Are you really surprised?
By Shochu John, at
Mon Apr 10, 01:42:00 PM:
The problem I find with the Vanden Brook article is the benchmark. It refers to the army's performance in relation to its recuriting goals. There is no way of telling if this is good or bad news unless we know how these goals compare to past goals. Has the bar been raised, lowered, left unchanged? Failure to note this information makes the entire story meaningless. I wouldn't call that evidence of bias, but I would call it evidence of lazy reporting.
By Cassandra, at
Mon Apr 10, 03:19:00 PM:
What difference do the Army's past goals make?
Performance only matters in relation to your current, not your past goals.
When you run a race this year, you don't say, "Gosh, I need to beat that dude I ran against LAST year...". You run to beat this year's entrants.
Similarly, the Army recruits to meet current needs, not last year's, or last decade's. Both the absolute numbers and the mix change from year to year and the upstream implications of this year's recruitig decisions by MOS are something that have to be factored in.
Recruits are not a fungible commodity, but this is not something the mainstream media ever take into their simplistic analysis.
By Shochu John, at
Mon Apr 10, 07:27:00 PM:
Well, Cassandra, it is imporant to get a feel for where the figures come from. The military has been known to revise goals downward when they were not likely to be met. Ergo, meeting the goals does not necessarily mean recruitment is strong. It could simply mean that the army is good at predicting what numbers it can realistically recruit.
By Dawnfire82, at
Mon Apr 10, 09:04:00 PM:
Doesn't really work that way, else they'd have revised the numbers a couple of years ago when recruiting was poorer, rather than just saying that they weren't meeting goals. Right? If the Army has been 'known to revise goals downward when they were not likely to be met' they sure dropped the ball before.
*deleted spiel about organizational changes in the Army*
It's meeting its goals by throwing money at us. (hurray) Important and scarce personnel, like linguists, are being paid extra money 1) to enlist, 2) to stay in, and 3) to retain proficiency in languages. They got these incentives before, but to such a smaller degree that many left the Army and went to other agencies or into international business or whatever because of the vast difference in pay. That's one of the reasons for higher retention ("$20,000 re-up bonus? And it's untaxable because I'm in Iraq? Hell yeah I'll re-enlist!") and probably the single best reason for increased recruitment lately. Lots of college grads are pouring into intelligence to get their loans paid off and get nifty training and security clearances. Being able to buy a car with cash afterwards is probably nice too.
By Shochu John, at
Mon Apr 10, 10:17:00 PM:
"Doesn't really work that way,"
Actually it does. For example, this from last year "The Army said it lowered the May target to 'adjust for changing market conditions,'"
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/06/09/national/main700721.shtml
By Mycroft, at
Mon Apr 10, 10:34:00 PM:
Better statistics for the health of the officer corps might be time in grade, time in the previous grade before promotion, and the number of candidates for each open position.
After all, if you're promoting inexperienced people to fill slots, that says that you think you have a shortage. Whereas, if people are taking a good time to learn their trade before being promoted, that's a good sign. If you have a healthy number of candidates for each promotion, that's an even healthier sign, since you get more discrimination.
Retention figures per se don't tell you all that much.
By 
, at
Wed Apr 12, 07:37:00 AM:
Sheesh. Is there any wonder why people perceive the mainstream media as anti-military?
Just what is the virtue in being pro military
By carmachu, at
Mon Apr 17, 06:32:00 PM:
"Just what is the virtue in being pro military ?"
Consider that they are all that stand between you and your freedoms, I'd say its a pretty good reason.
