thedrifter
04-25-06, 11:40 AM
May 01, 2006
Lawmakers to services: Don’t neglect recruiting
Budgets are down despite drop in sign-ups
By Rick Maze
Times staff writer
The services may not be giving enough attention and money to recruiting, leaving them unprepared for the next few years, when finding youths willing to enlist could become even more difficult, lawmakers say.
“This may be the most challenging era for recruiting and retention since the creation of the all-volunteer force,” said Rep. John McHugh, R-N.Y., chairman of the House Armed Services military personnel subcommittee.
Eight of the 10 active-duty and reserve components did not meet their minimum personnel strength levels set in law, and five of the 10 did not meet recruiting goals in fiscal 2005, which ended Sept. 30.
Fiscal 2005 also stands out for another unpalatable reason: Recruit quality began to decline after 25 years of fairly steady improvement. Some slippage in quality — defined by the percentage of recruits who are high school graduates and score well on aptitude tests — is expected, but McHugh sees reason for worry.
His concerns are deepened, he said, by the fact that the services seem to be scrimping on funding for recruiting and retention programs.
In fiscal 2005, the services spent a combined $3.1 billion on active-duty and reserve recruiting. Although there are no signs that the recruiting environment is improving, the Pentagon sought less — $2.7 billion — for its 2006 budget, albeit with an expectation that Congress would provide another $500 million to $700 million in the wartime emergency supplemental funding bill now taking shape.
The services also spent about $1.5 billion on retention bonuses in 2005, an increase of $626.5 million over the previous year. For 2006, the services asked for $817.9 million to pay for bonuses and other retention and re-enlistment incentives, and expect an additional $700 million to $900 million in emergency funding.
‘No way to run a railroad’
The 2007 budget, now being analyzed by Congress, appears to have the same problems. McHugh said the Army seems to have underfunded its 2007 recruiting budget by $250 million to $350 million — money that will have to be either added to the budget by Congress or included in next year’s emergency supplemental funding bill.
“This is no way to run a railroad,” McHugh said. “It is certainly no way to run recruiting and retention. Part of the problems we have right now in recruiting is that we have been on this up-and-down roller coaster.”
McHugh warned of “dangerous overreliance” on supplemental funding for bonuses and other recruiting and retention incentives because money in wartime supplemental bills is not guaranteed every year. Rep. Vic Snyder of Arkansas, ranking Democrat on McHugh’s panel, and Rep. Mike Conaway, R-Texas, raised similar concerns at an April 6 hearing focusing on military recruiting and retention programs.
David S.C. Chu, undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, said the Pentagon is willing to shift money from other programs to pay for recruiting and retention needs if there are problems. Chu also said that putting money in the supplemental budget for those purposes was not his idea or that of the service personnel chiefs, but was recommended by Pentagon budget officials.
McHugh said he worries that the Navy and Air Force are on a “kind of recruiting holiday” because they are in the midst of a planned decline in overall end strength.
“It is a very dangerous position if you allow yourself to get into a mind-set on recruiting and retention that you can just kind of mothball that effort,” McHugh said, adding that jump-starting an aggressive recruiting effort “doesn’t happen overnight.”
Lt. Gen. Roger Brady, Air Force deputy chief of staff for personnel, said he wants to avoid exactly that problem.
“As you get smaller, every recruit you get has got to be exactly the right recruit,” Brady said. “I would argue as you get smaller, in some ways recruiting becomes more difficult because the people you need the most, the most difficult to recruit, are people who have other really good options in the civilian world. It’s a challenge to get those people.”
Vice Adm. John Harvey Jr., chief of naval personnel, agreed. “My recommendation to my boss is probably going to be that we’re going to have to increase the amount of resources, in terms of the people recruiting, in terms of the dollars we support recruiting with, to maintain the quality of the force we’ve talked about already that’s so critical to our future,” he said. “As you get down to these smaller numbers, you cannot bring just anybody in that you can find to raise their right hand. We are going to have to go out and find the right person with the right skill set.”
The problem is that those are the people in great demand in the private sector, he said. “This recruiting job is going to get harder for all of us. We are not on a holiday and don’t anticipate getting on one any time soon.”
Marine Lt. Gen. H.P. Osman, deputy commandant for manpower and reserve affairs, was upbeat — in part because he assumes Congress will take care of any problems.
“I’m optimistic for the future,” he said. “Things will continue to be good, and I’m convinced of that because I’m convinced that Congress will continue to provide the tools to allow us to recruit, train and retain the Marines that we need for the future.”
Ellie
Lawmakers to services: Don’t neglect recruiting
Budgets are down despite drop in sign-ups
By Rick Maze
Times staff writer
The services may not be giving enough attention and money to recruiting, leaving them unprepared for the next few years, when finding youths willing to enlist could become even more difficult, lawmakers say.
“This may be the most challenging era for recruiting and retention since the creation of the all-volunteer force,” said Rep. John McHugh, R-N.Y., chairman of the House Armed Services military personnel subcommittee.
Eight of the 10 active-duty and reserve components did not meet their minimum personnel strength levels set in law, and five of the 10 did not meet recruiting goals in fiscal 2005, which ended Sept. 30.
Fiscal 2005 also stands out for another unpalatable reason: Recruit quality began to decline after 25 years of fairly steady improvement. Some slippage in quality — defined by the percentage of recruits who are high school graduates and score well on aptitude tests — is expected, but McHugh sees reason for worry.
His concerns are deepened, he said, by the fact that the services seem to be scrimping on funding for recruiting and retention programs.
In fiscal 2005, the services spent a combined $3.1 billion on active-duty and reserve recruiting. Although there are no signs that the recruiting environment is improving, the Pentagon sought less — $2.7 billion — for its 2006 budget, albeit with an expectation that Congress would provide another $500 million to $700 million in the wartime emergency supplemental funding bill now taking shape.
The services also spent about $1.5 billion on retention bonuses in 2005, an increase of $626.5 million over the previous year. For 2006, the services asked for $817.9 million to pay for bonuses and other retention and re-enlistment incentives, and expect an additional $700 million to $900 million in emergency funding.
‘No way to run a railroad’
The 2007 budget, now being analyzed by Congress, appears to have the same problems. McHugh said the Army seems to have underfunded its 2007 recruiting budget by $250 million to $350 million — money that will have to be either added to the budget by Congress or included in next year’s emergency supplemental funding bill.
“This is no way to run a railroad,” McHugh said. “It is certainly no way to run recruiting and retention. Part of the problems we have right now in recruiting is that we have been on this up-and-down roller coaster.”
McHugh warned of “dangerous overreliance” on supplemental funding for bonuses and other recruiting and retention incentives because money in wartime supplemental bills is not guaranteed every year. Rep. Vic Snyder of Arkansas, ranking Democrat on McHugh’s panel, and Rep. Mike Conaway, R-Texas, raised similar concerns at an April 6 hearing focusing on military recruiting and retention programs.
David S.C. Chu, undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, said the Pentagon is willing to shift money from other programs to pay for recruiting and retention needs if there are problems. Chu also said that putting money in the supplemental budget for those purposes was not his idea or that of the service personnel chiefs, but was recommended by Pentagon budget officials.
McHugh said he worries that the Navy and Air Force are on a “kind of recruiting holiday” because they are in the midst of a planned decline in overall end strength.
“It is a very dangerous position if you allow yourself to get into a mind-set on recruiting and retention that you can just kind of mothball that effort,” McHugh said, adding that jump-starting an aggressive recruiting effort “doesn’t happen overnight.”
Lt. Gen. Roger Brady, Air Force deputy chief of staff for personnel, said he wants to avoid exactly that problem.
“As you get smaller, every recruit you get has got to be exactly the right recruit,” Brady said. “I would argue as you get smaller, in some ways recruiting becomes more difficult because the people you need the most, the most difficult to recruit, are people who have other really good options in the civilian world. It’s a challenge to get those people.”
Vice Adm. John Harvey Jr., chief of naval personnel, agreed. “My recommendation to my boss is probably going to be that we’re going to have to increase the amount of resources, in terms of the people recruiting, in terms of the dollars we support recruiting with, to maintain the quality of the force we’ve talked about already that’s so critical to our future,” he said. “As you get down to these smaller numbers, you cannot bring just anybody in that you can find to raise their right hand. We are going to have to go out and find the right person with the right skill set.”
The problem is that those are the people in great demand in the private sector, he said. “This recruiting job is going to get harder for all of us. We are not on a holiday and don’t anticipate getting on one any time soon.”
Marine Lt. Gen. H.P. Osman, deputy commandant for manpower and reserve affairs, was upbeat — in part because he assumes Congress will take care of any problems.
“I’m optimistic for the future,” he said. “Things will continue to be good, and I’m convinced of that because I’m convinced that Congress will continue to provide the tools to allow us to recruit, train and retain the Marines that we need for the future.”
Ellie