2002 Active Duty Status of Forces Survey Overview Briefing January 31, 2003
advertisement
2002 Active Duty Status of Forces Survey Overview Briefing January 31, 2003 Briefing Overview ü Introduction Ø Satisfaction Ø PCS moves Ø Tempo Ø Personal readiness Ø Unit readiness Ø Retention Ø Major findings 2 January 2003 Introduction Ø Web-based, active-duty survey fielded July 8 – August 13, 2002 Ø 38K Service members surveyed, weighted response rate of 32% • High quality data achieved (margins of error generally within +/-5 percentage points) Ø Briefing includes the following: • Graphic displays of key results • Statistical tests based on reporting categories of Service members » To determine whether opinions are universally held or influenced by reporting categories, e.g., Service, paygrade, gender • Summaries of key findings 3 January 2003 Introduction Reporting Categories • • • • Service Army Navy Marine Corps Air Force Paygrade • E1-E4 • O1-O3 • E5-E9 • O4-O6 • W1-W5 Ethnicity • Non-Hispanic white • Minorities • • • • • • • • Location • CONUS • Overseas Family status Single w/ kids Single w/o kids Married w/ kids Married w/o kids Service by paygrade Army officer • Army enlisted Navy officer • Navy enlisted Marine Corps officer • Marine Corps enlisted Air Force officer • Air Force enlisted 4 Residence • On-base • Off-base • • • • Education No college Some college 4-year degree Grad/prof degree • • • • Gender by paygrade Male enlisted Male officer Female enlisted Female officer January 2003 Introduction Reading Reporting Categories Slides for SATISFACTION and AGREEMENT Findings How satisfied are you with each of the following? Green -- more satisfied Yellow -- less satisfied Very satisfied Satisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Dissatisfied Red -- more dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements. Green -- more agree Yellow -- less agree Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Red -- Disagree more disagree Strongly disagree 5 January 2003 Introduction Reading Reporting Categories Slides Standard Content Air Force E1-E4 E5-E9 O1-O3 O4-O6 No College Army Enlisted SAT DIS Marine Corps Satisfaction with military way of life Navy KEY: More Satisfied Less Satisfied More Dissatisfied Paygrade Category Army Service Category As Required Content 59 22 61 19 54 27 68 15 47 29 70 14 74 13 85 7 49 29 56 24 Margins of error within +/-4% Positive response • Satisfied • Agree • Etc. More Negative More Positive Less Positive 6 Negative response • Dissatisfied • Disagree • Etc. January 2003 Briefing Overview Ø Introduction ü Satisfaction Ø PCS moves Ø Tempo Ø Personal readiness Ø Unit readiness Ø Retention Ø Major findings 7 January 2003 Satisfaction ü Aspects of military service Ø Pay & benefits Ø Quality of life & family programs Ø Assignments & travel Ø Overall military way of life 8 January 2003 Aspects of Military Service How satisfied are you with each of the following? Job security 12% 5% 83% Military values, lifestyle, & tradition 15% 68% Off-duty education 57% Enjoyment from your work 57% Personal workload 56% Training, professional development 20% 10% 20% 20% 40% 50% 24% 36% 22% 30% 22% 22% 40% 0% 25% 22% 44% Your unit's morale 23% 18% 54% Pace of promotions 18% 38% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percent of Service Members AD SOFS July 02 Q27 Satisfied Margins of error within +/-2% Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied 9 Dissatisfied January 2003 Aspects of Military Service Reporting Categories AD SOFS July 02 Q27 Margins of error within +/-4% Male Enlisted Male Officers Army Enlisted Navy Enlisted Air Force Enlisted Your unit's morale No College Pace of promotions O4-O6 Training, professional development O1-O3 Personal workload E5-E9 Enjoyment from your work E1-E4 Off-duty education Air Force Military values, lifestyle, & tradition SAT DIS SAT DIS SAT DIS SAT DIS SAT DIS SAT DIS SAT DIS SAT DIS Marine Corps Job security Navy KEY: More satisfied Less satisfied More dissatisfied Army Percent of Service Members 79 7 65 21 50 30 55 26 54 24 50 29 45 37 35 43 87 3 67 18 61 19 57 24 59 20 56 23 43 37 43 36 79 6 66 18 52 27 53 27 52 22 55 22 41 39 39 38 83 4 74 12 65 16 61 22 58 22 59 19 45 31 44 34 79 6 56 24 52 27 44 33 51 22 49 27 38 40 31 47 85 4 75 14 64 20 65 19 60 22 57 22 43 38 42 36 87 3 80 9 53 20 70 16 60 21 62 19 68 12 56 24 85 6 88 7 56 14 78 11 61 23 68 16 59 24 65 19 79 7 58 23 50 26 50 29 52 22 52 25 40 39 36 43 82 5 65 19 56 25 54 26 55 22 53 24 40 40 37 41 86 4 83 8 54 18 75 13 61 21 63 19 63 19 60 21 79 7 62 23 51 30 52 28 53 24 48 30 41 40 31 47 87 3 65 19 62 20 55 26 58 20 54 24 40 40 40 39 82 4 71 13 66 17 58 24 58 21 57 19 41 34 40 36 10 January 2003 Aspects of Military Service 1999-2002 Comparisons 100% 1999 2002 90% 83% 80% 72% 68% Percent Satisfied 70% 60% 54% 57% 56% 50% 50% 49% 44% 40% 57% 40% 33% 44% 40% 43% 33% 30% 20% 10% ADS99 (Member) Q39 0% AD SOFS July 02 Q27 Morale Promotions Development Margins of error within +/-2% Workload Education 11 Enjoyment Tradition Security January 2003 Aspects of Military Service Summary of Findings 1999 – 2002 Trends Ø All “Aspects of Military Service” show increased satisfaction since 1999 survey • 7 of 8 areas up by 7 percentage points or more • 6 of 8 up by more than 10 percentage points 2002 Findings Ø Relatively high satisfaction for job security (83%) and military values, lifestyle and tradition (68%) Ø Less than 50% satisfied with promotions (44%) and morale (40%), with more than 1 in 3 being dissatisfied ADS99 (Member) Q39 AD SOFS July 02 Q27 Ø E1-E4 and Army enlisted not as satisfied or more dissatisfied in several areas 12 January 2003 Satisfaction Ø Aspects of military service ü Pay & benefits Ø Quality of life & family programs Ø Assignments & travel Ø Overall military way of life 13 January 2003 Pay & Benefits How satisfied are you with each of the following? Your medical/dental care 14% 62% Family medical/dental care 20% 46% Basic pay 14% 38% Military retirement system 35% Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) 35% Basic Allowance for Subsistence (BAS) 33% Military housing 29% Special pays (e.g., incentive, reenlistment) 28% Overseas Housing Allowance (OHA) 10% 48% 27% 18% 47% 17% 49% 25% 47% 21% 51% 31% 44% 52% 23% 0% 35% 39% 25% Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) 25% 20% 30% 40% 50% 25% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percent of Applicable Service Members AD SOFS July 02 Q45 Satisfied Margins of error within +/-2% Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied 14 Dissatisfied January 2003 Pay & Benefits Reporting Categories AD SOFS July 02 Q45 Margins of error within +/-4% O1-O3 O4-O6 Some College Male Enlisted Male Officers Army Enlisted Marine Enlisted Special pays (e.g., incentive, reenlistment) Cost-of-Living Allowance (COLA) Overseas Housing Allowance (OHA) E5-E9 Military housing E1-E4 Military retirement system Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) Basic Allowance for Subsistence (BAS) Air Force Basic pay SAT DIS SAT DIS SAT DIS SAT DIS SAT DIS SAT DIS SAT DIS SAT DIS SAT DIS SAT DIS Marine Corps Your medical/dental care Family medical/dental care Navy KEY: More satisfied Less satisfied More dissatisfied Army Percent of Applicable Service Members 60 27 45 37 34 53 29 30 31 51 30 55 25 56 26 54 23 49 20 32 65 22 49 31 40 46 37 27 39 44 35 48 31 38 32 49 29 40 24 18 58 27 43 32 33 52 30 23 28 48 24 53 23 47 20 53 21 47 17 25 63 23 44 36 44 42 41 24 38 47 41 42 35 40 31 48 27 38 29 21 63 24 47 25 31 54 30 17 32 43 30 52 28 39 30 45 22 40 16 21 59 26 45 41 36 51 33 39 33 53 35 49 30 50 23 60 24 52 26 32 66 19 49 35 65 24 46 23 48 41 41 43 25 58 41 42 41 33 43 18 64 23 44 44 66 23 61 22 45 44 43 39 26 58 45 39 42 38 45 23 59 27 45 36 34 52 32 29 32 51 33 51 29 46 26 52 24 46 21 27 61 26 45 35 32 54 31 29 31 50 31 52 29 45 26 53 22 46 18 27 64 21 44 42 62 27 52 24 44 44 38 45 25 59 41 42 38 37 41 21 60 27 46 36 29 57 26 30 29 51 29 55 26 55 25 55 21 50 17 33 58 28 44 31 29 55 27 24 26 49 23 54 22 46 18 55 20 48 16 25 15 January 2003 Pay & Benefits 1999-2002 Comparisons Percent Satisfied (Applicable Service Members) 100% ADS99 (Member) Q39 AD SOFS July 02 Q46 1999 90% 2002 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 38% 35% 28% 23% 27% 29% 23% 22% 20% 10% 0% Special Pays Margins of error within +/-2% Military Housing 16 BAH Basic Pay January 2003 Pay & Benefits Summary of Findings 1999 – 2002 Trends Ø Satisfaction up in 3 of 4 trend areas, but overall levels relatively low Ø Largest increases in satisfaction with Basic Pay and BAH 2002 Findings Ø Satisfaction less than 50% in all areas but members’ medical/dental care (62%) Ø Approximately half of members dissatisfied with Basic Pay (48%), BAH (47%), BAS (49%), special pays (51%), and military housing (47%) Ø Army enlisted not as satisfied and/or more dissatisfied in several areas AD SOFS July 02 Q45 17 January 2003 Satisfaction Ø Aspects of military service Ø Pay & benefits ü Quality of life & family programs Ø Assignments & travel Ø Overall military way of life 18 January 2003 Quality of Life & Family Programs How satisfied are you with each of the following? Exchanges and commissaries 15% 67% MWR/Services programs 28% 61% Military family support 33% Spouse employment and career opportunities 32% On-base childcare 10% 41% 49% 18% 34% 34% 44% 23% 0% 16% 20% 39% On-base schools 20% 12% 43% 41% Personal/family time 18% 30% 40% 50% 33% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percent of Applicable Service Members AD SOFS July 02 Q50 Satisfied Margins of error within +/-2% Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied 19 Dissatisfied January 2003 Quality of Life & Family Programs Reporting Categories AD SOFS July 02 Q50 Margins of error within +/-4% O4-O6 Navy Enlisted No College Male Enlisted Army Enlisted Air Force Enlisted On-base childcare O1-O3 Spouse employment & career opportunities E5-E9 On-base schools E1-E4 Personal/family time Air Force Military family support SAT DIS SAT DIS SAT DIS SAT DIS SAT DIS SAT DIS SAT DIS Marine Corps Exchanges & commissaries MWR/Services programs Navy KEY: More satisfied Less satisfied More dissatisfied Army Percent of Applicable Service Members 64 20 58 13 33 25 35 46 37 20 26 41 22 37 72 15 71 10 42 13 38 41 26 19 40 30 23 32 67 18 54 16 33 12 36 43 24 15 26 31 20 28 64 19 57 10 55 8 46 33 38 14 36 30 26 30 68 17 57 11 34 17 33 44 22 14 25 32 16 26 64 21 63 12 45 17 45 38 43 21 37 34 27 39 69 17 64 9 48 9 42 38 32 22 34 38 32 32 70 16 63 11 47 9 40 44 43 22 35 37 31 29 72 15 71 10 42 14 37 42 27 19 40 29 23 32 69 16 60 12 37 16 34 45 28 15 30 29 21 24 66 19 60 13 40 17 38 42 33 17 31 34 20 33 64 20 58 13 30 27 34 47 36 20 24 41 20 38 63 20 55 10 55 8 48 31 38 14 37 28 25 31 20 January 2003 Quality of Life & Family Programs 1999-2002 Comparisons Percent Satisfied (Applicable Service Members) 100% ADS99 (Member) Q39 AD SOFS July 02 Q50 1999 90% 2002 80% 70% 60% 50% 39% 40% 32% 32% 38% 41% 31% 30% 20% 10% 0% Spouse Employment Margins of error within +/-2% Personal/Family Time 21 Family Support January 2003 Quality of Life & Family Programs Summary of Findings 1999 – 2002 Trends Ø Small gain in personal & family time, up from 31% to 39% 2002 Findings Ø More members dissatisfied than satisfied with: • Personal & family time (41% vs. 39%) • Spouse employment & career opportunities (34% vs. 32%) • On-base childcare (33% vs. 23%) Ø Satisfaction relatively high with exchanges & commissaries and MWR/Services programs AD SOFS July 02 Q50 22 January 2003 Satisfaction Ø Aspects of military service Ø Pay & benefits Ø Quality of life & family programs ü Assignments & travel Ø Overall military way of life 23 January 2003 Assignments & Travel How satisfied are you with each of the following? Type of assignments received 19% 62% Frequency of PCS moves 32% 51% Deployments 10% 20% 20% 41% 43% 0% 17% 35% 45% Other military duties that take you away 19% 30% 40% 50% 60% 16% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percent of Service Members AD SOFS July 02 Q34 Satisfied Margins of error within +/-2% Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied 24 Dissatisfied January 2003 Assignments & Travel Reporting Categories AD SOFS July 02 Q34 Margins of error within +/-4% E1-E4 E5-E9 O1-O3 O4-O6 No College Single w/o Children Army Enlisted Marine Enlisted Other military duties that take you away Air Force Deployments SAT DIS SAT DIS SAT DIS SAT DIS Marine Corps Type of assignments received Frequency of PCS moves Navy KEY: More satisfied Less satisfied More dissatisfied Army Percent of Service Members 59 23 50 19 45 19 42 18 65 16 51 13 47 18 43 14 58 20 45 18 43 25 40 21 65 16 54 19 44 21 46 13 49 25 35 18 37 24 32 20 70 16 64 15 52 18 51 12 76 12 59 17 46 17 50 13 86 8 61 23 58 12 58 12 52 23 38 17 39 24 33 20 54 23 37 18 38 22 35 18 55 25 48 18 43 20 40 18 56 22 43 18 42 27 38 22 25 January 2003 Assignments & Travel 1999-2002 Comparisons 100% 1999 2002 90% 80% Members who had TDY/TAD in past 12 months dropped from 72% in 1999 to 65% in 2002 Percent Satisfied 70% 60% 62% 51% 50% 45% 43% 40% 30% 50% 36% 30% 25% 20% 10% ADS99 (Member) Q14, Q39 AD SOFS July 02 Q34, Q41 0% Other Duties Margins of error within +/-2% Deployments 26 Freq of PCS Assignments January 2003 Assignments & Travel Summary of Findings 1999 – 2002 Trends Ø Significant improvements (12-18 percentage points) in all assignment & travel measures 2002 Findings Ø Less than half satisfied with deployments and duties away from permanent duty station Ø Dissatisfaction is 1 in 5 or smaller Ø E1-E4 less satisfied in all areas AD SOFS July 02 Q34 27 January 2003 Satisfaction Ø Aspects of military service Ø Pay & benefits Ø Quality of life & family programs Ø Assignments & travel ü Overall military way of life 28 January 2003 Overall Military Way of Life Overall, how satisfied are you with the military way of life? Percent of Service Members Overall satisfaction 19% 61% 0% 20% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Margins of error within +/-2% AD SOFS July 02 Q52 Margins of error within +/-4% E1-E4 E5-E9 O1-O3 O4-O6 No College Army Enlisted SAT DIS Air Force Satisfaction with military way of life Marine Corps KEY: More satisfied Less satisfied More dissatisfied Dissatisfied Navy Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied Army Satisfied 59 22 61 19 54 27 68 15 47 29 70 14 74 13 85 7 49 29 56 24 29 January 2003 Overall Military Way of Life 1999-2002 Comparisons by Service 100% 1999 90% 2002 80% 68% Percent Satisfied 70% 60% 50% 61% 59% 61% 54% 45% 45% 56% 49% 49% 40% 30% 20% 10% ADS99 (Member) Q51 0% AD SOFS July 02 Q52 Army Margins of error within +/-4% Navy Marine Corps 30 Air Force Total January 2003 Overall Military Way of Life 1999-2002 Comparisons by Paygrade 100% 1999 90% 80% 70% Percent Satisfied 70% 72% 61% 60% 60% 54% 49% 47% 50% 40% 74% 2002 85% 37% 30% 20% 10% ADS99 (Member) Q51 0% AD SOFS July 02 Q52 E1 - E4 Margins of error within +/-3% E5 - E9 O1 - O3 31 O4 - O6 Total January 2003 Overall Military Way of Life Summary of Findings 1999 – 2002 Trends Ø Overall satisfaction with military way of life up 12 percentage points from 49% to 61% • Improvement in all Services (12 to 16 percentage points, except Marine Corps (5 points)) and across all paygrade categories 2002 Findings Ø Air Force most satisfied (68%) Ø Junior enlisted showed 10 percentage-point improvement over 1999 but still less satisfied (47%) than all other paygrade categories AD SOFS July 02 Q52 32 January 2003 Briefing Overview Ø Introduction Ø Satisfaction ü PCS moves Ø Tempo Ø Personal readiness Ø Unit readiness Ø Retention Ø Major findings 33 January 2003 PCS Moves For your most recent PCS move, were any of the following a problem? 88% State-specific requirements for HS graduation Change in PCS orders 77% Child enrollment in new school 77% Ship/store household goods 65% Available childcare 64% Temporary lodging expenses 64% 9% 3% 7% 16% 20% 4% 8% 27% 24% 26% 12% 10% Loss/decrease in spouse income 51% 27% 21% Spouse employment 51% 28% 21% Change in cost of living 50% 0% 10% 20% 30% 14% 35% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percent of Applicable Service Members Who Had A PCS Move Not a problem AD SOFS July 02 Q37 Margins of error within +/-2% Slight/Somewhat of a Problem 34 Serious Problem January 2003 PCS Moves Reporting Categories AD SOFS July 02 Q37 Margins of error within +/-4% Air Force E1-E4 E5-E9 O1-O3 O4-O6 Male Enlisted Male Officers Army Enlisted Air Force Enlisted Some College Single w/o Children Married w/ Children No Prob Prob No Prob Change in PCS orders Prob No Prob Child enrollment in Prob new school Ship/store household No Prob Prob goods No Prob Available childcare Prob No Prob Temporary lodging Prob expenses No Prob Loss/decrease in Prob spouse income No Prob Spouse employment Prob Change in cost of No Prob living Prob Marine Corps State requirement for HS graduation Navy KEY: More likely not to be a problem Less likely not to be a problem More likely to be a problem Army Percent of Applicable Service Members Who Had A PCS Move 85 4 73 9 76 4 65 8 62 13 60 13 48 25 47 25 49 15 89 1 80 4 76 3 64 8 64 13 62 11 51 20 50 20 49 16 88 4 79 7 79 5 66 9 61 14 67 8 50 21 49 21 49 14 90 3 79 6 77 3 66 7 65 11 67 8 56 18 56 17 52 13 95 1 74 7 84 4 62 8 61 17 63 11 58 19 54 23 52 16 86 4 79 6 77 3 71 7 62 12 64 11 46 25 47 22 48 15 95 1 75 6 78 3 58 9 71 8 65 8 60 16 57 19 57 11 82 3 76 6 65 6 54 13 71 7 63 10 62 14 58 15 51 12 88 3 77 7 79 3 67 8 64 12 62 11 48 24 47 23 48 15 87 3 75 6 71 5 56 10 72 7 62 9 59 16 55 18 53 12 85 4 73 9 78 4 67 8 61 14 61 14 46 27 46 26 48 16 91 3 80 5 80 3 69 6 63 11 67 7 54 20 55 18 51 13 88 4 79 7 77 3 68 7 60 13 63 11 50 23 49 21 49 16 98 0 76 6 96 1 67 7 91 3 70 8 77 11 74 13 57 13 85 4 77 6 73 4 65 9 60 13 60 12 46 24 46 22 47 16 35 January 2003 PCS Moves ADS99 (Member) Q13 AD SOFS July 02 Q37 Percent of Applicable Service Members Who Had PCS Move and "No Problem"" 1999-2002 Comparisons 100% 1999 2002 90% 77% 75% 80% 70% 64% 59% 60% 50% 64% 51% 50% 51% 65% 58% 50% 43% 38% 40% 36% 30% 20% 10% 0% Cost of living Spouse employment Margins of error within +/-2% Spouse income Lodging expenses 36 Childcare Ship/store household goods Change PCS January 2003 PCS Moves Summary of Findings 1999 – 2002 Trends Ø Percent of members reporting no problem increased 5–15 percentage points in 6 of 7 measured areas 2002 Findings Ø For each PCS-move measure, majority of members had no problem Ø Of those with a problem, those with slight or somewhat of a problem outweigh those with a serious problem Ø Income-related problems affected members most seriously • 1 in 5 members indicated serious problems with spouse employment or loss/decrease in spouse’s income • Half of members said change in cost of living resulted in slight to serious problem with most recent move Ø 12% said availability of childcare was a serious problem AD SOFS July 02 Q37 37 January 2003 Briefing Overview Ø Introduction Ø Satisfaction Ø PCS moves ü Tempo Ø Personal readiness Ø Unit readiness Ø Retention Ø Major findings 38 January 2003 Tempo When you have had to work more hours than usual, what were the primary reasons? High workload 85% Additional duties 68% Unit was under-manned 58% Inspections and inspect prep 54% Poor/lack of planning 48% Equipment failure and repair 42% Unit prep for deployment 37% Personal deployment status 29% Personal stay-behind status 21% 0% AD SOFS July 02 Q40 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percent of Applicable Service Members Margins of error within +/-2% 39 January 2003 Tempo Percent of Service Members In the past 12 months, have you spent more or less time away from your PDS than you expected? 53% 28% 0% 20% 40% 19% 60% 80% 100% Margins of error within +/-2% AD SOFS July 02 Q43 Margins of error within +/-4% E1-E4 E5-E9 O1-O3 O4-O6 Army Enlisted Air Force Enlisted Single w/o Children Less More Air Force Time away from duty station expectations Marine Corps KEY: Higher response of "less time" Lower response of "less time" Higher response of "more time" More time than expected Navy About the time expected Army Less time than expected 29 22 23 19 26 19 33 14 34 20 26 17 18 21 20 16 22 31 36 13 17 33 40 January 2003 Tempo Percent of Service Members What impact has time away (or lack thereof) from your PDS in the past 12 months had on your military career intentions? 68% 11% 0% 20% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Margins of error within +/-2% AD SOFS July 02 Q42 Margins of error within +/-4% Marine Corps Air Force E1-E4 E5-E9 O1-O3 O4-O6 Army Enlisted KEY: More likely to increase desire Less likely to increase desire More likely to decrease desire to stay Impact of time away Increase on desire to stay Decrease Decreased desire to stay Navy Neither incr'd nor decr'd desire Army Increased desire to stay 11 23 11 22 11 22 13 15 12 23 10 17 14 17 8 13 11 24 41 January 2003 Tempo & Career Intentions In the past 12 months, have you spent more or less time away from your PDS than you expected? What impact has time away from your PDS in the past 12 months had on your military career intentions? Less time than About the time More time expected expected than expected AD SOFS July 02 Q42,43 Decreased desire to stay 17% 15% 44% Neither increased nor decreased desire to stay 69% 75% 45% 14% 1414 10% 11% 100% 100% Increased desire to stay Total Margins of error within +/-4% 1 100% 42 January 2003 Tempo Summary of Findings 2002 Findings Ø Workload and additional duties main reasons for working more than usual Ø Desire to stay decreases with more-than-expected time away from permanent duty station AD SOFS July 02 Q40,42,43 43 January 2003 Briefing Overview Ø Introduction Ø Satisfaction Ø PCS moves Ø Tempo ü Personal readiness Ø Unit readiness Ø Retention Ø Major findings 44 January 2003 Personal Readiness How well prepared are you physically to perform your wartime job? 12% 84% 4% Taking into account your training and experience, overall how well prepared are you to perform your wartime job? 14% 81% 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percent of Service Members Well prepared AD SOFS July 02 Q29,30 Margins of error within +/-2% Neither well nor poorly prepared 45 Poorly prepared January 2003 Personal Readiness Reporting Categories AD SOFS July 02 Q29,30 Margins of error within +/-4% Air Force E1-E4 E5-E9 O1-O3 O4-O6 No College Army Enlisted Female Enlisted Prepared physically Well Poorly Well Poorly Marine Corps Prepared by training & experience Navy KEY: More well prepared Less well prepared More poorly prepared Army Percent of Service Members 80 7 86 4 83 3 84 4 83 5 84 5 80 6 83 3 73 8 82 5 89 3 86 3 81 5 90 2 90 3 87 4 78 7 82 5 79 7 85 4 66 12 69 10 46 January 2003 Personal Readiness Summary of Findings 2002 Findings Ø Most members (80% or more) feel well prepared both physically and by training & experience for wartime duties Ø Less than 5% feel poorly prepared Ø Female enlisted less positive about their personal readiness AD SOFS July 02 Q29,30 47 January 2003 Briefing Overview Ø Introduction Ø Satisfaction Ø PCS moves Ø Tempo Ø Personal readiness ü Unit readiness Ø Retention Ø Major findings 48 January 2003 Unit Readiness ü Training, manning, & equipment Ø Zero defect & micromanagement Ø Cohesion 49 January 2003 Training, Manning, & Equipment How prepared do you believe your unit is to perform its mission with regard to…? Training 24% 56% Manning level 24% 45% Parts and equipment 0% 10% 20% 31% 28% 41% 30% 40% 50% 60% 20% 32% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percent of Service Members Well Prepared AD SOFS July 02 Q28 Margins of error within +/-2% Neither Well nor Poorly Prepared 50 Poorly Prepared January 2003 Training, Manning, & Equipment Reporting Categories AD SOFS July 02 Q28 Margins of error within +/-4% Air Force E1-E4 E5-E9 O1-O3 O4-O6 Male Enlisted Male Officers Army Enlisted Navy Enlisted Some College Well Poorly Well Poorly Well Poorly Marine Corps Training-level preparedness Manning-level preparedness Parts and equipment preparedness Navy KEY: More well prepared Less well prepared More poorly prepared Army Percent of Service Members 51 23 41 33 36 36 60 18 51 27 41 32 61 18 51 27 40 34 56 20 42 35 47 25 56 20 49 26 40 33 53 22 42 36 40 32 63 15 44 34 43 28 64 13 43 32 50 19 55 21 45 31 39 34 63 15 43 33 44 25 49 24 40 33 35 38 60 19 52 26 40 32 54 22 44 33 40 34 51 January 2003 Training, Manning, & Equipment 1999-2002 Comparisons 100% 1999 90% 2002 Percent Well Prepared 80% 70% 56% 60% 53% 50% 40% 36% 45% 41% 35% 30% 20% 10% ADS99 (Member) 0% Q20 AD SOFS July 02 Q28 Equipment Margins of error within +/-2% Manning 52 Training January 2003 Training, Manning, & Equipment Summary of Findings 1999 – 2002 Trends Ø Perception of unit readiness higher than in 1999 in all three categories (training, manning, and equipment) 2002 Findings Ø Almost 1 in 3 members indicate units are poorly prepared due to manning and equipment ADS99 (Member) Q20 AD SOFS July 02 Q28,29,& 30 53 January 2003 Unit Readiness Ø Training, manning, & equipment ü Zero defect & micromanagement Ø Cohesion 54 January 2003 Zero Defect & Micromanagement Indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements… Unit has a "zero defect" mentality 29% 43% Service has a "zero defect" mentality 34% 39% Unit is micromanaged 10% 49% 35% 21% 0% 27% 26% 25% Service is micromanaged 27% 20% 30% 40% 45% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percent of Service Members AD SOFS July 02 Q32 Disagree (positive) Margins of error within +/-2% Neither Agree nor Disagree 55 Agree (negative) January 2003 Zero Defect & Micromanagement Reporting Categories AD SOFS July 02 Q32 Margins of error within +/-4% Marine Corps Air Force E1-E4 E5-E9 O1-O3 O4-O6 No College Male Officers Navy Enlisted Air Force Enlisted Disagree Agree Disagree Agree Disagree Unit is micromanaged Agree Disagree Service is Agree micromanaged Unit has a "zero defect" mentality Service has a "zero defect" mentality Navy KEY: More likely to disagree Less likely to disagree More likely to agree Army Percent of Service Members 42 29 38 27 24 51 19 47 43 23 41 24 24 51 18 47 43 33 35 33 25 49 25 43 45 26 41 25 27 46 23 40 40 28 39 23 16 53 16 44 42 29 40 26 27 50 24 44 57 20 43 32 41 37 26 46 57 23 32 46 50 30 29 45 36 29 34 27 18 51 16 47 56 23 37 39 44 34 26 47 42 23 41 22 20 53 18 48 43 26 41 23 22 49 21 40 56 January 2003 Zero Defect & Micromanagement Summary of Findings 2002 Findings Ø About one-quarter of members believe “zero defect” mentality exists at unit and service levels Ø Almost half of members indicate units are micromanaged AD SOFS July 02 Q32 57 January 2003 Unit Readiness Ø Training, manning, & equipment Ø Zero defect & micromanagement ü Cohesion 58 January 2003 Items in the Unit Cohesion Scale Indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements about your unit. • • • • AD SOFS July 02 Q31 Service members in your unit really care about each other Service members in your unit work well as a team Service members in your unit pull together to get the job done Service members in your unit trust each other 59 January 2003 Unit Cohesion Army 80% 11% 9% Navy 80% 13% 8% Marine Corps 80% 11% 11% 84% Air Force O4 - O6 7% 5% 88% 8% 86% E5 - E9 16% 74% E1 - E4 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 6% 5% 4% 90% O1 - O3 10% 50% 60% 70% 80% 6% 11% 90% 100% Percent of Service Members AD SOFS July 02 Q31 Agree Margins of error within +/-2% Neither Agree nor Disagree 60 Disagree January 2003 Unit Cohesion Summary of Findings 2002 Findings Ø Junior enlisted less likely to agree with positive statements about unit cohesion 61 January 2003 Briefing Overview Ø Introduction Ø Satisfaction Ø PCS moves Ø Tempo Ø Personal readiness Ø Unit readiness ü Retention Ø Major findings 62 January 2003 Retention Key Questions Percent of Service Members How likely is it it that you would choose to stay on active duty? 58% 15% How likely is it that you would serve in the military for at least 20 years? 59% 13% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 26% 28% 70% 80% 90% 100% Margins of error within +/-2% AD SOFS July 02 Q22,23 Margins of error within +/-4% Air Force E1-E4 E5-E9 O1-O3 O4-O6 No College Single w/o Children Male Officers Marine Enlisted Likely Unlikely Likely Unlikely Marine Corps Likelihood of staying active duty Likelihood of staying for 20 years Unlikely Navy KEY: More likely Less likely More unlikely Neither likely nor unlikely Army Likely 58 28 59 29 60 23 59 26 46 39 50 40 63 23 65 22 43 36 38 43 70 19 80 13 66 21 63 23 78 15 93 5 48 33 45 38 43 36 40 42 73 17 77 15 43 41 47 43 63 January 2003 Retention ADS99 (Member) Q32 AD SOFS July 02 Q22 Percent of Applicable Service Members Likely to Stay 1999-2002 Comparisons by Service 100% 1999 90% 2002 80% 70% 58% 60% 50% 48% 63% 60% 58% 56% 50% 42% 50% 46% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Army Margins of error within +/-4% Navy Marine Corps 64 Air Force Total January 2003 Percent of Applicable Service Members Likely to Stay Retention ADS99 (Member) Q32 AD SOFS July 02 Q22 100% 1999-2002 Comparisons by Paygrade 1999 90% 2002 78% 80% 72% 70% 70% 66% 63% 58% 60% 53% 50% 50% 43% 40% 32% 30% 20% 10% 0% E1 - E4 Margins of error within +/-4% E5 - E9 O1 - O3 65 O4 - O6 Total January 2003 Retention Percent of Applicable Service Members Does your spouse, girlfriend, or boyfriend think you should stay on or leave active duty? 15% 52% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 33% 70% 80% 90% 100% Margins of error within +/-2% AD SOFS July 02 Q26 Margins of error within +/-4% Marine Corps Air Force E1-E4 E5-E9 O1-O3 O4-O6 No College Male Officers Marine Enlisted Stay Leave Favors leaving Navy KEY: More likely to favor staying Less likely to favor staying More likely to favor leaving What your significant other thinks Has no opinion Army Favors staying 52 33 52 33 45 39 56 28 37 41 63 26 56 31 67 26 44 36 62 27 42 41 66 January 2003 Items in the Organizational Commitment Scale Indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements about your Service. • • • AD SOFS July 02 Q25 Being a member of your Service inspires you to do the best job you can You are willing to make sacrifices to help your Service You are glad that you are part of your Service 67 January 2003 Organizational Commitment Army 80% 11% 9% Navy 80% 13% 8% Marine Corps 80% 11% 11% 84% Air Force O4 - O6 7% 5% 88% 8% 86% E5 - E9 16% 74% E1 - E4 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 6% 5% 4% 90% O1 - O3 10% 50% 60% 70% 80% 6% 11% 90% 100% Percent of Service Members AD SOFS July 02 Q25 Agree Margins of error within +/-2% Neither Agree nor Disagree 68 Disagree January 2003 Retention Summary of Findings 1999 – 2002 Trends Ø Retention intention up by 8 percentage points from 1999 (50% to 58%) • Led by Army and Navy (+10 percentage points each) • Also led by E1-E4 (+11 percentage points) and O1-O3 (+13 percentage points) paygrades 2002 Findings Ø Indicators reinforce such retention (organizational commitment and significant others) • Slight majority of members indicate significant other thinks they should continue to serve • 1 in 3 say significant other thinks they should leave active duty AD SOFS July 02 Q22,23,25,26 69 January 2003 Briefing Overview Ø Introduction Ø Satisfaction Ø PCS moves Ø Tempo Ø Personal readiness Ø Unit readiness Ø Retention ü Major findings 70 January 2003 Major Findings Ø Indicators from this survey are higher for all but one measure compared to 1999 active-duty survey • Spouse employment findings did not change Ø Satisfaction of active-duty military mixed • 70 percent or higher satisfied with job security, military values, and exchange/commissary • Under 50 percent satisfied with pay, housing, and family programs Ø PCS-move measures improved from 1999 • Majority of members had no problem • Income-related problems (spouse employment, cost of living) affected members most seriously Ø Increases in tempo due mainly to workload and additional duties 71 January 2003 Major Findings Ø More than 80 percent feel they are ready to perform wartime duties--physically and with respect to training and experience Ø Unit readiness somewhat lower with issues of training, manning levels, and parts/equipment Ø Almost 60% favor staying in military 72 January 2003
