Research for incentives

Syndicate content
March 1, 2006

This study hopes to improve the Selected Reserve Incentive Program (SRIP) and to help the Marine Corps Reserve (MCR) to better understand Selected Reserve (SelRes) attrition. First, we document the legislative authorities for the payment of SelRes unit bonuses and bonus offerings across the Guard/Reserve components. Next, we document findings from focus groups held with Marines in the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR). The study also describes recommended changes to the current SRIP that could help improve its ability to recruit and retain Marines in SMCR units. Finally, we present our analysis of SelRes attrition and the effect of SRIP bonuses on retention.

Read More | Download Report
August 1, 2003
The primary tasking for this project was to develop a choice-based conjoint (CBC) model of Sailors' preferences for reenlistment incentives and quality-of-service factors to learn more about how compensation-based reenlistment incentives compare with non-compensation factors in influencing reenlistment decisions. In response to this tasking, we designed the Navy Survey on Reenlistment and Quality of Service (NSRQOS), and sent it to approximately 9,000 first-term Sailors. The survey results indicate that, even with several measures of pay included in the survey, non-pay factors play a substantial role in guiding Sailors’ reenlistment intentions. The secondary tasking was to demonstrate how CBC survey data and models can be used to analyze personnel issues. Based on a review of the relevant literature, we concluded that CBC surveys are most appropriate for short-term applications in which the decisions of interest are made on the basis of competitive differences between a few well-known attributes. Therefore, the best Navy personnel applications of the CBC methodology would be analyses of proposed policies that entail well-defined trade-offs between a few characteristics. Furthermore, use of CBC results should focus on the relative effects of different characteristics; results should not focus on absolute changes in predicted reenlistment rates or program participation rates.
Read More | Download Report
December 1, 2001
The 9th Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation (QRMC) is seeking ways to better structure military compensation to alleviate current recruiting, manning, and retention shortfalls. Structured correctly. Basic pay and special pays should provide incentives to stay in the military, to gain experience and skills valuable to the services, and to move into critical skill areas or jobs where they are most needed. No existing pays fully answer the need to provide incentives to take on jobs that require serving alone, away from home. For this reason, the 9th QRMC is considering the creation of a new pay that would compensate service members for the hardships associated with deployments. The difficulty in creating such a pay, however, is establishing consistent definitions and measures of many of the key concepts related to time away from home. Relevant issues include: identifying the goals of any new deployment pay and the hardships for which people should be compensated; defining deployments and time away; and developing a deployment pay structure. Taken together or separately, these definitional and conceptual issues must be considered when determining the structure or use of a new pay and how it would relate to existing military pays. In a companion paper, we examine in detail the largest "away" pay, sea pay. Here we summarize that paper's conclusions regarding sea pay and examine several of the other special and incentive pays that historically have been used too compensate people for hardships associated with deployments. We then examine the availability of these pays to date and assess the adequacy of these pays in meeting the military 's goals. Finally, we conclude by outlining policy options and recommending compensation changes that would better align existing pays with any newly created pays and with the military's primary goals and objectives.
Read More | Download Report
April 1, 2001
Sea manning shortfalls have plagued the Navy over the latter part of the 1990s-with E4-E9 sea manning dropping below 90 percent for much of that time. The Navy considered two general solutions: ordering sailors to sea for longer or offering incentives for sailors to volunteer for additional sea duty. Although the assignment to sea duty is involuntary, the length sailors actually serve reflects both their sea duty obligation and their willingness to serve at sea . As we will document here, many sailors do not complete their sea tours, so lengthening sea tours may not be an effective way to improve manning. A recent CNA study used survey data to predict how sailors would respond if the Navy were to restructure sea pay, which is the Navy's primary distribution tool. In this annotated briefing, we look at historical data on the average time sailors spend at sea and relate them to changes in sea pay. Survey and anecdotal evidence exist, but little direct evidence links sea pay and time spent at sea. These data provide additional empirical evidence on sailors' response to sea duty incentives and the groundwork for a more detailed study in the future. In addition, as the Navy reforms sea pay, it will need to monitor the system and change sea pay rates when necessary. The measures we present here may provide a basis for evaluating the effectiveness of the reform.
Read More | Download Report