MILITARY

PERSONNEL

Preliminary Results of

DOD’s 1999 Survey of

Active Duty Members

Statement of Norman J. Rabkin, Director, National Security Preparedness

Issues, National Security and International Affairs Division

United States General Accounting Office

GAO Testimony

Before the Subcommittee on Military Personnel,

Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives

For Release on Delivery

Expected at

1:00 p.m.

Wednesday

March 8, 2000

GAO/T-NSIAD-00-110
Page 1

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

Since the end of the Cold War and the subsequent downsizing, the U.S. military has

undergone considerable change. Last year, Congress approved substantial increases in

pay and retirement benefits for military personnel. It is too early to know the impacts of

these changes; they only became effective in January. This year, with pay and retirement

increases in place, Department of Defense (DOD) leaders are proposing significant

funding increases to improve health care and housing.

Some accounts of military life today paint a bleak picture. Reports of declining military

readiness and decreased retention raise several questions. What is the level of

satisfaction in the military ranks? What is keeping people in, or driving them out, of the

military? Is the smaller military being stretched too thin, resulting in long hours and too

much time away from home? And finally, how do military personnel perceive they are

faring in today's strong economy?

Last year, this Subcommittee asked us to provide information on these issues for this

year’s hearing season. We worked with DOD to help refine its 1999 Survey of Active

Duty Personnel. DOD then administered the survey to a stratified random sample of

66,000 servicemembers and provided us preliminary data from over 32,000 respondents

(a 49 percent response rate).1 The information we are presenting today has been

projected to represent the views of the entire force. We thank DOD for its cooperation in

making this information available so that we could testify before you today.

Because we had limited time to analyze the data, we will keep our discussion at a

summary level. We will focus on three main areas: (1) satisfaction with military life and

the aspects of military life that influence decisions to stay in or leave, (2) the extent to

which military personnel are working long hours and spending time away from home,

and (3) the personal financial conditions reported by military personnel.

RESULTS IN BRIEF

Based on the survey results, more military personnel are satisfied with their way of life

(about 50 percent) than are dissatisfied (about 29 percent). Officers have markedly

higher satisfaction rates than enlisted personnel, and in general, satisfaction tends to

increase with seniority. Satisfaction and intent to stay in the military are strongly linked.

About 73 percent of satisfied personnel indicated that they are likely to stay in the

military; in contrast, only 20 percent of dissatisfied personnel indicated they are likely to

stay. Pay and job enjoyment were cited as top reasons for both intending to stay and

considering leaving the military. Other top reasons cited for contemplating leaving

included quality of leadership and amount of "personal/family time." Neither housing

nor health care for families was among the top reasons cited by military personnel for

1 DOD provided us with the responses they had received as of November 30, 1999. DOD has continued to

collect and compile survey information since providing us this preliminary data. We anticipate receiving

the final data set in March 2000. DOD has told us the final data set will have about a 56 percent response

rate.
Page 2

considering leaving the military. In fact, family medical care was among the top reasons

for considering staying in the military. However, on balance, most military personnel

believe that they would be better compensated and have more personal and family time

available in the civilian world.

Concern that the smaller military force is being stretched thin in places may be

warranted. Nearly two-thirds of the force reported working between 41 and 60 hours a

week, and almost one-quarter indicated they worked more than 60 hours a week. Those

working longer hours had lower overall satisfaction. Our analysis shows that satisfaction

drops for the quarter of the force that reported working more than 60 hours per week.

Top reasons cited for working more hours than usual included mission requirements,

additional duties like special projects, staffing shortfalls, and deployment-related issues.

About 82 percent reported spending less than 5 months away from their home duty

station during the past year, and 45 percent were away from home less than one month.

Personnel who spent 5 months or more away (about 19 percent) were less satisfied than

those who spent less time away. The top difficulties encountered by servicemembers

while they were away included managing expenses or bills, communicating with their

families, and household and car repairs.

Overall, more than half of all military personnel (53 percent) reported being financially

secure. However, some enlisted personnel appear financially strapped--about 22 percent

reported that it was tough to make ends meet or that they were in over their head. Many

enlisted personnel seem to have little financial cushion—more than half reported having

less than $1,000 in savings. A small portion of the enlisted force reported that they had

received assistance from government programs like Women, Infants, and Children; Food

Stamps; and Medicaid. Although the percentage of the force receiving these types of

assistance is fairly low—1 percent or less for Food Stamps, Medicaid, and state child care

assistance—this translates into thousands of recipients throughout the force.

UNDERSTANDING REASONS FOR STAYING IN IS

CRITICAL IN CHOOSING SOLUTIONS

Before discussing the details of our analysis, it is important to talk about how aspects of

military life interact to form a decision to stay in or leave the military. That decision is

complex and highly personal. Servicemembers use their own experiences and

perceptions to answer one simple-sounding question: Would I be better off if I stayed in

or left the military? If they have or are planning a family, they also consider their well

being in the decision. The military’s ability to retain personnel relies on the summation

of all these personal decisions.

The decision is not simply monetary, though money and overall compensation are

important. Compensation is within the control of the government; Congress and the

President can give the military a pay raise or sweeten retirement or other benefits, as they

did last year. However, other factors, such as the strength of the national economy, have

a profound impact. Better-paying jobs, less time away from home, or a more stable

lifestyle, may also lure military members to civilian life.
Page 3

The nature of the retention challenges facing DOD needs to be better understood. We

have reviewed retention patterns for 10 years for a report due out in March 2000. We

found that the retention problem is concentrated in certain career fields like

communications, intelligence, and equipment repair. In our view, keeping in mind the

complexity of the reasons for staying in or leaving is important because solutions

generally cannot be “one size fits all.” As we testified before this Subcommittee last

year, pockets of problems are best addressed with targeted fixes, not irreversible, acrossthe-board solutions.2

With that background, we will now discuss our analyses of the key survey data in three

topic areas. First, we provide information about satisfaction and intent to remain in the

military. Then, we discuss workload and time away from home and its impact on

satisfaction. Finally, we provide an overview of the economic situation of military

members. Appendix I describes our scope and methodology.

2

Military Retirement: Proposed Changes Warrant Careful Analysis (GAO/T-NSIAD-99-94, Feb. 25,

1999).
Page 4

SATISFACTION AND INTENT TO REMAIN IN THE MILITARY

50

65

46

22

17

23

29

18

31

0

20

40

60

80

En tire forc e Of fic ers En listed

Satisfied Neither D issa tis fie d

Figure 1: Overall S atisfaction W ith

Military Way of Life

Percent

Overall, more active duty personnel reported they were satisfied (about 50 percent) than

dissatisfied (29 percent).

Officers had markedly higher rates of satisfaction than enlisted personnel, with about 65

percent of officers indicating they were satisfied compared to about 46 percent of enlisted

personnel.
Page 5

35 26 10 7 23

36

42

61 60

72

0

20

40

60

80

100

Junior en liste d

(E1-E3)

Mid- grad e

en listed (E 4-E 5)

Se ni or En listed

(E6-E9)

Warrant & ju nior

off ice rs ( W1-W5 &

O 1-O 3)

Sen ior office rs

(O 4-O 6)

% of acti ve force Satisf action

Figure 2: Overall Satisfaction and Pay Grade

Percent of each grade

group indicating they were

satisfied or very satisfied

Percent

Enlisted personnel constitute the bulk of the force—roughly 84 percent. This strongly

affects any DOD-wide findings because the survey data has been weighted to represent

all personnel in the force proportionately.

The line shows the percent of each grade group that indicated they were “satisfied” or

“very satisfied” with military life. Officers were more satisfied than enlisted personnel.

Within both the enlisted force and the officer corps, higher-ranking personnel tended to

be more satisfied than lower ranking personnel.
Page 6

0

20

40

60

80

100

50 22 29

73

43

20

Satisfied Neither Dissatisfied

Percent of each group indicating

they intend to stay in the military

Figure 3: Overall Satisfaction Rates

Compared to Likelihood of Staying in Military

Percent

Satisfaction with military life and intent to stay in the military are strongly linked.

However, not everyone who is satisfied intends to stay and not everyone who is

dissatisfied intends to leave. About 73 percent of those who are satisfied with the

military way of life indicate they intend to stay, compared to only 20 percent of those

who are dissatisfied.

Overall, roughly half (51 percent) of members said that it was likely that they would stay

in the military, and about 35 percent said it was unlikely.
Page 7

Figure 4: Top 5 Reasons for Staying or

Considering Staying

Percent of the force citing each aspect of military

life as the top reason to stay or think about staying

Basic pay

Job security

Retirement pay

Job enjoyment

Family medical care

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

19

14

10

9

5

Figure 5: Top 5 Reasons for Leaving or

Considering Leaving

Percent of the force citing each aspect of military life

as the top reason to leave or think about leaving

Basic pay

Amount of personal

and family time

Deployments

Job enjoyment

Quality of leadership

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

28

9

8

7

6
Page 8

Members were asked to rate their satisfaction with 37 aspects of military life. These

aspects addressed a broad range of issues, including pay, health care, housing, workload,

and deployments. Respondents were then asked to choose the most important reason for

considering staying in or leaving.

As shown in figure 4, basic pay was reported to be the most important reason to stay,

followed by job security, retirement pay, job enjoyment, and medical care for families.

Together, these five factors accounted for 57 percent of the responses; the other 32

factors garnered less than half the responses.

As shown in figure 5, reasons for leaving included two of the same factors, but also

included quality of leadership, amount of “personal/family time available," and

deployments. Pay was by far the most frequently cited reason for leaving or thinking of

leaving. Taken together, the top five reasons accounted for approximately 58 percent of

the members’ answers.

Two aspects were among the top five on both lists (basic pay and job enjoyment),

indicating that some view these items as incentives to stay while some view them as

disincentives. We see this as an indication that these factors are generally important to

military personnel. It should be noted that a significant pay raise and increased

retirement benefits were approved, but had not yet appeared in paychecks, while this

survey was being conducted.

Neither housing nor health care for families was among the top reasons cited by military

personnel for considering leaving the military. In fact, family medical care was among

the top reasons for considering staying in the military.
Page 9

66

75

36

20 19

34

14

7

30

0

20

40

60

80

To tal co m pen sation Person al/fam ily tim e

av ailable

R et ir em ent b enefits

C iv ilian better No differen ce/D on 't kn ow Military better

Figure 6: Service Mem ber Perceptions of

Com parability W ith C ivilian Sector

Percent

Regarding some of the aspects of military life that were seen as top reasons to leave or

consider leaving, military personnel perceived that the civilian sector would treat them

better.

About two-thirds of the force cited total compensation, defined as pay, bonuses, and

allowances, as being better in the civilian sector.

Three-quarters of the force indicated that more personal or family time was available in

the civilian sector.

Perceptions about the comparability of retirement benefits between the civilian sector and

the military were more mixed, with a little more than one-third seeing civilian retirement

benefits as better and a little less than one-third seeing them as better in the military.
Page 10

WORKLOAD AND TIME AWAY FROM HOME

0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 0

Figure 7: Number of Hours Worked and Its

Relationship With Satisfaction

40-less 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-more

15 6 6 37 25 12

52 53 51

45 42

37

Number of hours worked in last full week

Percent

Percent of each group

indicating they were

satisfied or very satisfied

The bars in figure 7 show how many hours military personnel reported working during

the week before they filled out the survey. About half of the force reported that they had

worked more than 50 hours per week, and about 24 percent indicated more than 60 hours

per week.

The line shows the satisfaction rate for each of the subgroups. Moderate amounts of

overtime, up to about 60 hours per week, do not greatly affect satisfaction. However,

satisfaction tends to decrease sharply for those who reported working more than 60 hours

per week.
Page 11

11

13

14

15

19

20

27

34

39

44

0 10 20 30 40 50

Figure 8: Reasons Why Worked Longer

Hours

Percent

Mission critical requirements

Additional duties

Unit undermanned

Unit preparing for deployment

Equipment failure and repairs

Others not carrying workload

Demanding supervisor

Part of unit deployed

High workload

Poor/lack of planning

Members cited mission critical requirements as the top reason for working long hours

during the past 12 months. Several of the other reasons appear to be related to staffing

(e.g., high workload, additional duties, under-staffed unit, and others not carrying their

share of the workload). Deployment issues were also prominent. About 19 percent of

the members said that they had worked extra hours to prepare for deployment. About 11

percent cited deployment of part of the unit as a reason for working longer hours than

usual.

Furthermore, the data suggest that long hours, per se, do not necessarily lead to lower

satisfaction and retention. Those citing mission requirements as the reason for longer

hours were actually more satisfied and more likely to lean toward staying in the service

than those citing other reasons. However, personnel who reported that staffing shortfalls,

equipment failures, others not carrying their share of the workload, poor/lack of planning,

and demanding supervisor as the reasons for longer hours had lower rates of satisfaction.
Page 12

Figure 9: Perceived Manning Preparedness

Compared to Satisfaction

0

20

40

60

80

Very w ell W ell Neither Poorly Very poorly

How prepared is your unit with regard to manning? % satisfied

63 60

49

43

30

7 28 28 27 10

Percent

Staffing shortfalls was one of the top reasons cited for working longer hours, so we

looked at a related survey item that asked members to rate how well their unit was

prepared in terms of having sufficient staff to accomplish its mission.

About 37 percent felt their unit was poorly or very poorly prepared from a staffing

standpoint. These subgroups also had lower satisfaction rates than those who rated

staffing preparedness higher.
Page 13

Figure 10: Perceived Parts/Equipment

Preparedness Compared to Satisfaction

0

20

40

60

80

Very w ell Well Neither Poorly Very poorly

How prepared is your unit with regard to parts and equipm ent?

% satisfied

65 61

49

42

28

7 29 29 23 12

Percent of each group indicating

they were satisfied or very satisfied

Percent

Since equipment failures and repairs were one of the top reasons cited for working longer

hours, we looked at a related survey item that asked members to rate how well their unit

was prepared in terms of the parts and equipment needed to accomplish their mission.

About 35 percent felt their unit was poorly or very poorly prepared from a parts and

equipment standpoint. These subgroups also had lower satisfaction rates than those who

rated parts and equipment preparedness higher.
Page 14

0

1 0

2 0

3 0

4 0

5 0

6 0

7 0

Figure 11: Total Time Away From Home Duty

Station and Its Relationship With Satisfaction

52 54

49

41 38

45 21 16 11 8

Less than 1 1 to 3 3 to 5 5 to 7 7 or more

Months away from home during the last year

Percent of each group indicating

they were satisfied or very

satisfied

Percent

The bars in figure 11 represent the number of months military personnel reported

spending away from their home duty station during the past year. As shown, the vast

majority of the force, almost 82 percent, reported that they spent less than 5 months away

from home. Almost 45 percent were away from home less than 1 month. Thus, high

deployment rates (defined as more than 5 months away) were limited to about 19 percent

of the force.

Satisfaction is relatively stable for those who were away for less than 5 months.

However, it drops off considerably for those who were away for 5 months or more.
Page 15

20

21

23

45

51

57

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Figure 12: Most Frequent Concerns Experienced

While Away From Home

Managing expense/bills

Communicating with family

Household/car maintenance

Interruption of off-duty education

Safety of family in community

Childcare arrangements

Percent

When personnel are away from home, they and their families can be affected in a variety

of ways. About 72 percent of military personnel were away from home during the past

12 months. When asked about concerns they had when they were required to be away

from their permanent duty station, many members cited problems that ranged from

managing expenses or bills to child care arrangements for their children. Figure 12

shows the most frequently-cited impacts.
Page 16

ECONOMIC SITUATION OF MILITARY MEMBERS

53

79

4 7

2 9

17

3 1

5

22 19

0

20

40

60

80

100

Total fo rce Officers Enlisted

Secu re Oc cas ion al d iffic ulty To ug h/In ov er head

Figure 13: Overall Financial Condition

Percent

When asked to rate their overall financial security on a scale from “secure” to being “in

over their head,” slightly more than half of all personnel reported that they were

financially secure or had no financial difficulties.

A higher proportion of officers reported being financially secure than enlisted personnel.

More than one-fifth of enlisted personnel reported that things were tough financially or

that they were in over their head.
Page 17

67

13

27

19

0

20

40

60

80

Of ficers Enlisted

S avings/Investm ents Un secu red d eb t

Figure 14: Savings/Investments and

Unsecured Debt Over $10,000

Percent

To gain a better sense of members’ financial condition, we analyzed how much they

reported having in savings and unsecured debt. Savings were defined as bank accounts,

individual retirement accounts, money market accounts, certificates of deposit, savings

bonds, mutual funds, stocks, and bonds. Unsecured debt was defined as credit card debt,

debt consolidation loans, exchange loans, student loans, and other personal loans.

Members were told to exclude home mortgages and automobile loans.

Over one-quarter of the officers and nearly one-fifth of enlisted personnel reported

unsecured debts exceeding $10,000. This level of indebtedness within the enlisted ranks

raises some concern, especially when their low level of savings is considered. In fact,

many enlisted personnel appear to have very little cushion for emergencies or unexpected

expenses, since about 54 percent reported having less than $1,000 in savings.
Page 18

Figure 15: Types of Financial Problems

Reported by Enlisted Personnel

Borrowed from family/friends

Behind on credit card payments

Bounced 2 or more checks

Pressured by creditors

Late payment letter sent to

commander

Percent

21

18

15

14

8

0 5 10 15 20 25

Figure 15 displays financial problems some enlisted members had experienced in the

previous year. The list of 14 possible problems ranged from borrowing money from

friends and family to pawning valuables to garnishment of wages.

Most enlisted personnel (about 57 percent) said they had not experienced any of the

problems listed. Quite a few, however, reported having one or more of these problems,

some of which can have serious repercussions. For example, 15 percent of enlisted

personnel reported having bounced two or more checks, a potential violation of the

Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Page 19

Figure 16: Enlisted Personnel Receiving

Various Forms of Government Assistance

Women, Infants, Children (WIC)

Food Stamp Program

Medicaid

State child care assistance

Percent

0.7

0.7

1.2

10.2

0 5 10

Some enlisted members reported that they had received assistance from various

government programs during the past 12 months. About 10 percent of the enlisted force

reported receiving assistance through the Women, Infants and Children program. This

program provides checks or coupons for the purchase of specific foods designed to

supplement participants’ diets. The program also provides other services to lowerincome pregnant and postpartum women and children to the age of five. To be eligible,

participants’ gross income must be at or below 185 percent of the poverty level,

depending on the income standard established by the states. According to DOD officials,

the military seeks participants and supports the Women, Infants and Children program on

some military bases.

Although the percentage of the force receiving government assistance is fairly low for

other programs--1 percent or less for food stamps, Medicaid, and state child care

assistance – this translates into thousands of recipients throughout the force.
Page 20

APPENDIX I

SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY

The best way to reliably assess the pulse of military members is by surveying a broadbased, representative sample of personnel. This past year, we worked with the

Department of Defense (DOD) to develop and administer such a survey, which covered a

wide range of issues. It was mailed in the fall 1999 to a stratified random sample of over

66,000 military personnel. As of November 30, 1999, over 32,000 active duty personnel

had completed and returned the surveys. DOD provided us with this interim data so that

we could provide timely information to the Congress. Our work has been conducted in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

QUESTIONNAIRE DEVELOPMENT

The active duty survey is a recurring survey that was last administered in 1992. When

DOD learned that the Subcommittee on Military Personnel had asked us to administer a

separate survey to military personnel, the Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense (Force

Management Policy) offered to allow us to include questions on the active duty survey

DOD was already planning to conduct. We worked with DOD staff to refine the survey

instrument and address additional content areas.

The survey was pretested and refined at Navy bases around Jacksonville, Florida; Pope

Air Force Base, Fayetteville, North Carolina; and the U.S. Marine base at Quantico,

Virginia. Time constraints prevented additional pretesting with Army and Coast Guard

personnel beyond that performed by DOD on an earlier version of the survey.

SAMPLE CONSTRUCTION

The sample of 66,040 military members was drawn from a May 1999 population of

1,419,269 active duty DOD and U.S. Coast Guard personnel who were below the rank of

admiral or general and had at least 6 months of service. The sample was stratified on five

variables: service; pay grade; gender; location, that is, inside or outside the continental

United States; and marital status.

DOD survey experts used response rates from prior surveys to adjust the sample for

groups with differing expected rates of survey completion. Also, the sample was

designed to provide varying levels of precision for numerous subgroups (e.g., + 3

percentage points for each service or pay grade group and + 5 percentage points for

senior officers in the Army).

SURVEY ADMINISTRATION

As of November 30, 1999, DOD had received 32,341 surveys with at least some

questions answered. We classified all of these people as eligible respondents, but later,

more in-depth analyses could show that some of the surveys should be reclassified as

ineligible because the members left the military or for some other reason. Another 320
Page 21

respondents were deleted from the survey because they did not qualify for participation.

As a result, the unweighted response rate was 49.2 percent (32,341 of the adjusted sample

of 65,720).

DOD used a contractor to administer the survey. We did not test the contractor’s

procedures or validate the data provided to us. We did review DOD’s and its contractor’s

quality control procedures for a similar large survey.

WEIGHTING RESPONSES AND POTENTIAL NONRESPONSE BIAS

We adjusted the survey responses to reflect the DOD population. First, we divided the

population size for each of the 348 cells in the sampling design by the number of

completed surveys received from eligible respondents in that cell. Then, U.S. Coast

Guard personnel and their returned surveys were removed from the population. This

procedure adjusts for both the different proportions of people sampled from each cell and

the response rate for the cell. DOD will develop more precise post-stratification weights

that will accompany the full database when it is delivered in March. Using the simpler

weights and the preliminary database was the only way that findings could be prepared in

time for this testimony.

Survey findings assume that nonrespondents would have answered like respondents—an

often-used assumption in survey methodologies. There is some risk of nonresponse bias,

but it would take elaborate and time-consuming work to test for this bias. In recent years,

both military and civilian surveys have experienced decreased response rates. Although

weighting can be used to statistically adjust for the differing sampling rates and response

rates within the sampling cells, weighting cannot adjust for possible differences between

those who do and those who do not respond to a survey. However, it must be recognized

that the active duty survey is the only source of DOD-wide information for many of the

issues addressed by the survey and is far more reliable than anecdotal information or

information generated by smaller, nonrepresentative samples.

(703283)
ORDERS BY INTERNET

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET, send an e-mail

message with “info” in the body to

Info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at

http://www.gao.gov

TO REPORT FRAUD, WASTE, AND ABUSE

IN FEDERAL PROGRAMS

Contact one:

• website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

• e-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

• 1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system)