June 30, 2011 - Notes and Sources

After the worst recession since the Great Depression, unemployment in the United States remains high. Army recruiters have credited the weak economy with a rise in recruitment numbers for years. Not only did the Army meet its recruitment goals for Fiscal Year 2012, in its analysis of FY2010 accessions to the U.S. Army, National Priorities Project (NPP) finds great gains in terms of recruit quality, particularly with respect to the educational attainment of recruits.

The Army reported a goal for FY2010 of 74,500 active Army recruits and maintained that goal throughout the year. In October 2010, they said that the goal was met with 74,577 recruits.1 Why do given Army numbers differ from those analyzed by NPP? First, the Army reports numbers of “contracts” rather than “accessions;” that is, the Army provides the number of recruits who signed a contract agreeing to join, while NPP looks at the number of recruits who arrive at boot camp or “accede.” Second, the data in this report is non-prior service recruits only, which is defined as a recruit who has not served in the armed forces for more than 180 days previously. Third, the Army counts individuals who sign a contract agreeing to deploy later (known as the Delayed Entry Program or DEP) when they sign the contract, while NPP's data would capture these recruits when they report for basic training.

Recruit Demographics

Of the 70,026 recruits in FY2010, 1,111 came from U.S. Possessions and Territories, including the Federated States of Micronesia, Guam, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and foreign addresses, including military postal addresses. The vast majority of recruits come from the United States, 68,915 this year. For some parts of our analysis, we use zip-code level data from the U.S. Census Bureau to give us a better idea of recruits’ backgrounds. About 1 percent of recruits report zip codes that are inconsistent with their reported hometowns. When we use Census data, we therefore restrict our analysis to the 68,129 recruits for whom we have consistent data.

Military Recruitment Count by County

Rank	State	County	No. FY 2010 Recruits
1	California	Los Angeles County	1437
2	Arizona	Maricopa County	1043
3	Texas	Harris County	907
4	California	San Diego County	719
5	Texas	Bexar County	676
6	California	San Bernardino County	653
7	Illinois	Cook County	649
8	California	Riverside County	623
9	California	Orange County	535
10	Texas	Dallas County	522
11	Texas	Tarrant County	492
12	Florida	Miami-Dade County	489
13	Nevada	Clark County	461
14	Florida	Broward County	427
15	Florida	Hillsborough County	416
16	California	Sacramento County	408
17	Florida	Orange County	392
18	North Carolina	Cumberland County	377
19	Texas	El Paso County	306
20	Washington	Pierce County	305
21	New York	Kings County	291
22	Arizona	Pima County	288
23	Colorado	El Paso County	287
24	Florida	Duval County	287
25	Florida	Pinellas County	253
26	Texas	Bell County	250
27	California	Santa Clara County	245
28	Michigan	Wayne County	245
29	Hawaii	Honolulu County	239
30	Washington	King County	239
31	New York	Queens County	238
32	South Carolina	Richland County	237
33	New York	Bronx County	237
34	Ohio	Franklin County	234
35	Florida	Palm Beach County	226
36	Florida	Brevard County	217
37	Texas	Travis County	209
38	Texas	Denton County	205
39	Georgia	Fulton County	205
40	California	Fresno County	205
41	North Carolina	Mecklenburg County	204
42	Florida	Volusia County	202
43	Massachusetts	Middlesex County	201
44	North Carolina	Wake County	192
45	Utah	Salt Lake County	192
46	California	San Joaquin County	187
47	California	Alameda County	187
48	California	Kern County	185
49	Michigan	Oakland County	181
50	Texas	Collin County	179
51	Florida	Lee County	178
52	Virginia	Fairfax County	178
53	Tennessee	Shelby County	176
54	Georgia	Gwinnett County	173
55	Pennsylvania	Allegheny County	172
56	Maryland	Prince George's County	170
57	New York	Suffolk County	170
58	Oklahoma	Oklahoma County	169
59	Georgia	Cobb County	168
60	Virginia	Virginia Beach city	164
61	Pennsylvania	Philadelphia County	163
62	Georgia	Muscogee County	161
63	Georgia	DeKalb County	160
64	New York	Erie County	158
65	Indiana	Clay County	154
66	Missouri	St. Louis County	153
67	Ohio	Cuyahoga County	152
68	Michigan	Macomb County	151
69	Alabama	Jefferson County	150
70	Florida	Polk County	149
71	Washington	Snohomish County	149
72	California	Contra Costa County	149
73	California	Stanislaus County	147
74	Wisconsin	Milwaukee County	147
75	Florida	Pasco County	146
76	Missouri	Jackson County	146
77	Ohio	Montgomery County	145
78	New Mexico	Bernalillo County	145
79	Texas	Cameron County	144
80	Texas	Montgomery County	143
81	California	Ventura County	143
82	Connecticut	New Haven County	142
83	Oklahoma	Tulsa County	140
84	North Carolina	Guilford County	137
85	Illinois	Lake County	136
86	Illinois	DuPage County	136
87	Washington	Clark County	135
88	Maryland	Montgomery County	135
89	Florida	Seminole County	132
90	Tennessee	Montgomery County	131
91	Nevada	Washoe County	131
92	Texas	Hidalgo County	131
93	Georgia	Richmond County	130
94	Oregon	Multnomah County	128
95	Alabama	Madison County	124
96	Texas	Williamson County	124
97	Alabama	Mobile County	124
98	Maryland	Anne Arundel County	124
99	Idaho	Ada County	123
100	Colorado	Jefferson County	122

 

This year's recruit pool was slightly more male, younger, and more racially diverse than last year. Note that Hispanic is considered an ethnicity and not a race by both the U.S. Army and the Census Bureau. An individual may belong to both an ethnic and a racial group, which leads to overlap among those who identify as Hispanic and black, Asian, white, or Native. 

 

Military Recruitment - Demographics by Year

Year	Race					Ethnicity	Age (yrs)	Sex
	Black	White	Asian/PI	Native	Other	Hispanic		Male	Female
FY05	15.0%	80.4%	3.4%	1.2%	0.0%	11.8%
FY06	14.4%	80.4%	3.5%	1.1%	0.5%	11.1%
FY07	14.9%	80.8%	3.2%	1.0%	0.1%	10.7%		83.6%	16.4%
FY08	16.6%	79.2%	3.3%	1.0%	0.0%	10.9%	21.7	83.8%	16.2%
FY09	17.2%	78.1%	3.8%	0.9%	0.0%	10.9%	21.9	84.4%	15.6%
FY10	18.9%	75.6%	4.8%	0.8%	0.0%	11.9%	21.6	85.8%	14.2%

 

 

Educational Attainment

Having a regular high school diploma is the single best predictor of successful completion of a first term of enlistment. Decades of research by the Department of Defense show that 80 percent of recruits with a high school diploma will complete their first term of enlistment while up to half of those with alternative credentials or no high school education will drop out.2 Therefore, the Army has set a goal of 90 percent of recruits with high school diplomas or better. 

For the first year since NPP began tracking military recruitment statistics in 2004, the Army not only met this goal but surpassed it. 96.8 percent of accessions in FY2010 had a high school diploma or better.

However, recent research indicates that modern high school education is failing to prepare graduates for the military. According to a report released in December 2010 by The Education Trust entitled “Shut Out of the Military: Today's High School Education Doesn't Mean You're Ready for Today's Army,” 1 in 5 high school students failed to qualify for enlistment in the Army based on their Armed Forces Qualification Test score.3 Students of color were more likely to fail the test. For future recruit pools, DoD may need to reconsider the value placed on a high school diploma if educational standards do not produce enough recruits able to pass the Armed Forces Qualification Test. 

 

Military Recruitment - Proportion of Tier 1 Recruits by State

Rank in FY10	State	FY07	FY08	FY09	FY10
-	All recruits	70.7%	73.4%	84.9%	96.8%
-	US recruits only	70.4%	73.8%	84.8%	96.8%
44	Alabama	62.3%	68.6%	81.7%	95.0%
42	Alaska	65.3%	65.1%	71.4%	95.3%
15	Arizona	68.8%	69.4%	83.9%	97.1%
31	Arkansas	59.9%	63.7%	79.3%	96.4%
7	California	73.3%	75.6%	86.5%	97.6%
39	Colorado	69.3%	69.6%	82.4%	95.5%
3	Connecticut	78.6%	82.5%	91.0%	98.3%
35	Delaware	76.3%	81.5%	90.8%	96.1%
38	District of Columbia	79.5%	67.5%	93.2%	95.7%
10	Florida	66.1%	69.0%	82.7%	97.3%
27	Georgia	64.6%	69.1%	82.1%	96.6%
4	Hawaii	78.3%	79.6%	87.6%	98.2%
48	Idaho	64.8%	67.5%	80.3%	93.9%
24	Illinois	72.6%	77.1%	85.8%	96.8%
33	Indiana	64.8%	67.9%	78.7%	96.3%
12	Iowa	77.8%	79.4%	87.9%	97.3%
34	Kansas	72.8%	73.6%	84.1%	96.2%
40	Kentucky	71.8%	73.2%	84.3%	95.4%
8	Louisiana	64.6%	68.7%	82.0%	97.5%
17	Maine	71.9%	72.4%	85.0%	97.1%
29	Maryland	69.4%	77.6%	85.4%	96.5%
13	Massachusetts	76.8%	77.2%	88.2%	97.2%
6	Michigan	69.3%	73.0%	85.0%	97.6%
2	Minnesota	79.8%	81.7%	89.7%	98.4%
36	Mississippi	59.2%	64.2%	80.7%	95.8%
26	Missouri	73.7%	75.0%	84.7%	96.7%
51	Montana	58.2%	65.4%	76.5%	92.6%
19	Nebraska	80.6%	82.1%	92.9%	97.0%
41	Nevada	54.1%	59.7%	80.7%	95.4%
22	New Hampshire	75.4%	70.6%	86.3%	96.9%
1	New Jersey	78.3%	80.4%	87.8%	98.6%
28	New Mexico	72.6%	72.3%	81.8%	96.6%
18	New York	67.7%	73.6%	85.5%	97.1%
16	North Carolina	76.6%	79.0%	88.1%	97.1%
11	North Dakota	66.7%	71.4%	90.8%	97.3%
9	Ohio	74.9%	78.2%	87.9%	97.4%
47	Oklahoma	65.8%	70.8%	79.5%	94.6%
45	Oregon	62.3%	65.6%	78.7%	95.0%
23	Pennsylvania	75.2%	76.5%	86.1%	96.9%
37	Rhode Island	63.8%	62.3%	78.2%	95.7%
5	South Carolina	70.4%	73.2%	84.9%	97.7%
49	South Dakota	75.4%	81.5%	86.5%	93.7%
20	Tennessee	65.1%	70.6%	84.1%	97.0%
25	Texas	75.0%	77.7%	87.3%	96.8%
30	Utah	62.6%	69.2%	83.5%	96.5%
21	Vermont	80.8%	81.9%	94.3%	97.0%
32	Virginia	66.9%	71.8%	84.9%	96.4%
43	Washington	65.1%	67.8%	79.0%	95.1%
46	West Virginia	66.5%	69.0%	78.3%	95.0%
14	Wisconsin	77.7%	81.2%	90.0%	97.1%
50	Wyoming	66.9%	59.3%	83.3%	93.5%

 

 

Armed Forces Qualification Test

Each recruit is scored on a scale of 0-99 when they take the Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT) before beginning duty. This score is a percentile instead of an absolute and indicates where the recruit scored compared to 18-23 year old civilians who took the test in 1997 as part of a norming study. 

The Army uses the AFQT percentile scores as an indication of recruit trainability. Recruits with scores in Test Score Categories (TSC) I (AFQT percentiles 93-99) and II (65-92) are considered to be above average in trainability; those with scores in TSCs IIIA (50-64) and IIIB (31-49) are considered of average trainability; those with scores in Category IV (10-30) are considered of below average trainability; and those with scores in Category V (0-9) are considered of markedly below average trainability and are typically refused enlistment.

In previous years, the Department of Defense supplied NPP with the actual score of each recruit. For FY2010, they created three categories of scores and assigned one to each recruit (scores of 99-50, 49-31, and 30 or less). For the last category, NPP assumes this is solely Category IV recruits (with scores of 10-30) due to both the low incidence of these scores and the policy of barring those with AFQT percentiles of less than 10 from joining.

Until 2006, DoD's goal was a minimum of 67 percent of recruits testing at least in the 50th percentile of the AFQT, with scores falling into TSCs I – IIIA (99-50) and indicating average to above average trainability. That goal has since been lowered to 60 percent of recruits in these categories. The Army met their current standard with 63.9 percent of recruits scoring in TSC I-IIIA in FY2010, although this represents a decrease from the FY2009 rate of 66.4 percent.

At the other end of the scoring spectrum, DoD set the goal of 4 percent or less of recruits scoring in categories IV (10-30). FY2010 not only continued the trend of meeting this goal, but low-scoring recruits were almost non-existent. A mere 273 recruits out of 70,026 (or 0.38 percent) scored in this range. 

 

Military Recruitment - Proportion of Test Score Categories I-IIIA and IV by State

State	FY08		FY09		FY10
	TSC I-IIIA	TSC IV	TSC I-IIIA	TSC IV	TSC I-IIIA	TSC IV
All recruits	62.0%	3.5%	66.4%	1.5%	63.9%	0.4%
US recruits only	62.6%	3.2%	67.0%	1.3%	64.5%	0.2%
Alabama	60.3%	2.4%	62.9%	1.3%	55.5%	0.0%
Alaska	66.5%	2.8%	78.1%	0.0%	65.3%	0.0%
Arizona	66.1%	2.6%	69.6%	1.2%	69.3%	0.3%
Arkansas	62.3%	3.5%	61.5%	1.5%	57.4%	0.0%
California	61.1%	4.5%	63.9%	2.0%	63.8%	0.5%
Colorado	68.5%	2.7%	74.4%	1.0%	72.2%	0.0%
Connecticut	60.3%	4.1%	66.9%	0.5%	63.5%	0.6%
Delaware	70.5%	1.4%	64.9%	3.1%	64.8%	0.0%
District of Columbia	50.0%	0.0%	57.7%	0.0%	52.2%	0.0%
Florida	63.6%	2.3%	68.2%	0.8%	63.9%	0.3%
Georgia	58.4%	2.3%	62.7%	1.3%	58.0%	0.2%
Hawaii	46.9%	9.6%	55.1%	5.2%	55.4%	0.0%
Idaho	72.6%	0.7%	75.3%	0.2%	69.5%	0.0%
Illinois	61.5%	3.7%	66.4%	1.4%	66.0%	0.1%
Indiana	70.5%	1.5%	74.1%	1.0%	72.3%	0.0%
Iowa	63.9%	3.9%	75.4%	0.9%	69.3%	0.4%
Kansas	65.3%	3.3%	74.2%	0.5%	70.0%	0.4%
Kentucky	61.8%	2.7%	64.4%	0.6%	66.1%	0.0%
Louisiana	53.1%	4.6%	56.3%	1.9%	52.8%	0.0%
Maine	64.8%	2.4%	69.8%	0.8%	72.0%	0.0%
Maryland	61.1%	3.0%	63.4%	1.0%	62.7%	0.3%
Massachusetts	62.5%	5.2%	66.6%	2.7%	69.1%	0.1%
Michigan	62.1%	4.1%	69.8%	0.9%	66.4%	0.3%
Minnesota	71.8%	2.7%	72.1%	1.5%	75.3%	0.0%
Mississippi	53.8%	4.8%	55.4%	1.2%	50.4%	0.0%
Missouri	62.7%	4.3%	66.7%	1.4%	63.0%	0.1%
Montana	65.7%	1.7%	77.9%	0.7%	73.0%	0.0%
Nebraska	69.2%	2.1%	69.2%	2.2%	69.3%	0.5%
Nevada	63.6%	2.6%	69.7%	1.1%	66.2%	0.0%
New Hampshire	67.5%	3.6%	73.0%	0.7%	75.5%	0.0%
New Jersey	56.6%	5.3%	64.8%	1.5%	62.9%	0.3%
New Mexico	59.1%	2.7%	65.3%	1.5%	61.1%	0.4%
New York	60.8%	3.8%	67.2%	1.5%	65.9%	0.4%
North Carolina	61.7%	2.9%	63.6%	1.2%	60.9%	0.2%
North Dakota	80.4%	1.8%	72.4%	1.1%	79.7%	0.0%
Ohio	64.5%	2.5%	69.3%	1.6%	64.3%	0.1%
Oklahoma	60.3%	4.0%	63.9%	1.3%	65.0%	0.0%
Oregon	69.9%	2.3%	74.8%	1.4%	72.7%	0.0%
Pennsylvania	65.5%	3.0%	71.3%	1.1%	69.9%	0.1%
Rhode Island	64.9%	2.0%	65.3%	2.7%	74.3%	0.0%
South Carolina	56.2%	3.9%	61.9%	0.7%	56.8%	0.0%
South Dakota	64.8%	5.6%	68.9%	2.0%	67.5%	0.0%
Tennessee	63.2%	2.3%	68.2%	0.6%	64.8%	0.0%
Texas	61.8%	3.3%	64.6%	1.4%	62.6%	0.3%
Utah	66.2%	1.8%	72.2%	1.8%	74.0%	0.0%
Vermont	71.6%	0.9%	76.1%	1.1%	68.7%	0.0%
Virginia	61.2%	2.9%	67.8%	1.6%	62.7%	0.1%
Washington	69.7%	1.4%	74.3%	0.8%	72.1%	0.1%
West Virginia	57.1%	3.1%	65.7%	0.3%	62.2%	0.0%
Wisconsin	68.7%	2.7%	71.5%	0.9%	69.4%	0.0%
Wyoming	70.4%	2.2%	71.7%	0.0%	67.2%	0.0%

Note. TSC I-IIIA represents AFQT test scores ranging from 50-99, and the Army's goal is for at least 60% of its recruits to score in this range. TSC IV represents AFQT scores from 10-30, and the Army's goal is for 4% or less of its recruits to score in this range. The Army typically does not enlist those scoring below the 10th percentile on the AFQT.

High Quality Recruits

The Department of Defense defines a “high quality” recruit based on a combination of educational attainment and AFQT score. A “high quality” recruit is one who scores at or above the 50th percentile on the AFQT (Categories I – IIIA) and who is Tier 1 (has a regular high school diploma or better). DoD strives to have all recruits be “high quality” as these recruits will be more likely to complete contracted enlistment terms and perform better during training and in the service.

 

Military Recruitment - Proportion of High Quality Recruits

State	FY07	FY08	FY09	FY10
All recruits	-	-	-	61.4%
US recruits only	44.9%	45.9%	54.1%	61.9%
Alabama	36.7%	40.5%	47.6%	52.2%
Alaska	46.0%	44.2%	52.8%	60.6%
Arizona	45.8%	45.8%	55.6%	66.7%
Arkansas	35.5%	38.6%	44.3%	54.7%
California	44.7%	44.9%	52.3%	61.7%
Colorado	51.8%	48.2%	59.0%	68.3%
Connecticut	51.4%	50.0%	59.2%	62.4%
Delaware	39.2%	59.6%	58.8%	62.5%
District of Columbia	46.2%	30.0%	51.9%	50.0%
Florida	41.5%	43.8%	53.3%	61.6%
Georgia	38.9%	39.4%	48.5%	55.5%
Hawaii	43.4%	38.1%	44.9%	53.8%
Idaho	47.6%	50.0%	58.5%	65.6%
Illinois	47.8%	47.0%	54.7%	63.3%
Indiana	46.2%	48.7%	55.8%	69.0%
Iowa	51.3%	51.9%	63.7%	66.9%
Kansas	49.4%	48.8%	60.1%	66.9%
Kentucky	45.0%	45.5%	52.0%	61.8%
Louisiana	33.3%	36.6%	42.7%	50.7%
Maine	50.3%	46.1%	57.1%	69.8%
Maryland	40.9%	48.2%	52.4%	60.1%
Massachusetts	51.1%	48.8%	56.6%	67.0%
Michigan	45.8%	45.5%	56.5%	64.2%
Minnesota	55.8%	58.7%	62.9%	73.8%
Mississippi	31.6%	34.1%	40.4%	47.6%
Missouri	45.5%	46.4%	53.3%	60.7%
Montana	41.2%	46.5%	58.0%	68.0%
Nebraska	51.6%	57.5%	62.7%	66.6%
Nevada	33.6%	38.9%	53.0%	62.8%
New Hampshire	55.2%	46.4%	61.9%	73.5%
New Jersey	45.2%	45.7%	54.5%	61.8%
New Mexico	41.5%	41.9%	50.8%	58.5%
New York	42.7%	45.7%	56.0%	63.7%
North Carolina	47.8%	48.8%	53.4%	58.5%
North Dakota	53.6%	60.7%	64.4%	78.4%
Ohio	51.2%	51.3%	59.1%	62.1%
Oklahoma	40.8%	43.2%	48.4%	61.4%
Oregon	43.6%	46.4%	55.7%	68.8%
Pennsylvania	50.2%	50.0%	59.4%	67.3%
Rhode Island	43.8%	39.7%	46.3%	70.7%
South Carolina	40.2%	38.0%	48.9%	54.7%
South Dakota	54.4%	53.7%	56.1%	61.9%
Tennessee	43.9%	45.2%	54.4%	62.2%
Texas	46.3%	48.1%	53.7%	60.1%
Utah	41.1%	47.0%	58.0%	71.5%
Vermont	53.4%	61.2%	70.5%	65.7%
Virginia	42.3%	44.6%	55.7%	59.9%
Washington	45.9%	47.6%	55.7%	68.2%
West Virginia	44.1%	41.7%	48.8%	58.7%
Wisconsin	52.1%	56.0%	62.4%	66.7%
Wyoming	48.2%	40.7%	58.7%	61.8%

 

Overall Recruitment Rates

The number of recruits from a given location is useful information, but it does not give a complete picture of recruitment. For example, in FY2010, Maine and Nebraska contributed almost the same number of recruits (411 and 437 respectively). However, Maine's much smaller population means they contributed a larger percentage of their youth to the military, and this is reflected in the recruitment rate of each state. Maine's rate, which is calculated as number of recruits per 1,000 youth aged 18-24, is 3.6, while Nebraska's is 2.4. In order to better illustrate the targeted demographic for enlistment, rates from NPP's previous years of analysis have been adjusted to reflect a candidate pool of 18-24 year old youths instead of the 15-24 standard used previously.

Military Recruitment - Regional Recruitment Rates

	FY06	FY07	FY08	FY09	FY10
Northeast	1.61	1.54	1.56	1.44	1.50
Midwest	2.34	2.17	2.07	1.90	2.02
South	2.84	2.84	2.94	2.59	2.83
West	2.06	1.90	2.04	2.06	2.23

 

Military Recruitment - State Recruitment Rates

Rank	State	FY07	FY08	FY09	FY10
-	US Recruits Total	2.27	2.29	2.10	2.28
8	Alabama	3.59	3.61	3.20	3.15
24	Alaska	3.00	2.87	2.39	2.36
11	Arizona	2.71	3.30	2.94	2.94
20	Arkansas	3.29	2.80	2.43	2.58
35	California	1.53	1.59	1.64	1.92
16	Colorado	2.23	2.26	2.31	2.68
45	Connecticut	1.10	1.17	1.21	1.48
42	Delaware	1.17	1.73	1.56	1.52
51	District of Columbia	0.61	0.61	0.79	0.65
6	Florida	2.99	3.17	2.86	3.25
2	Georgia	2.93	3.36	3.00	3.45
14	Hawaii	2.46	2.14	2.20	2.71
9	Idaho	2.56	2.96	2.93	3.01
38	Illinois	1.89	1.71	1.54	1.70
29	Indiana	2.21	2.46	2.17	2.08
37	Iowa	1.96	1.94	1.74	1.79
26	Kansas	2.79	2.40	2.27	2.32
34	Kentucky	2.53	2.37	2.09	1.94
36	Louisiana	2.13	2.00	1.71	1.80
1	Maine	3.34	3.14	3.04	3.59
31	Maryland	1.67	1.73	1.67	2.04
47	Massachusetts	1.23	1.37	1.30	1.43
30	Michigan	2.29	2.17	1.99	2.05
44	Minnesota	1.29	1.43	1.43	1.51
33	Mississippi	1.90	2.24	1.99	1.97
15	Missouri	2.89	2.74	2.29	2.69
17	Montana	3.39	3.00	2.96	2.67
23	Nebraska	2.21	2.09	2.00	2.38
5	Nevada	3.04	3.47	3.16	3.42
22	New Hampshire	1.99	2.04	2.27	2.40
46	New Jersey	1.19	1.26	1.31	1.47
25	New Mexico	2.27	2.59	2.26	2.33
48	New York	1.57	1.51	1.34	1.31
7	North Carolina	3.04	3.07	2.83	3.17
50	North Dakota	0.91	0.73	1.14	0.93
27	Ohio	2.30	2.29	2.16	2.29
13	Oklahoma	3.31	2.74	2.40	2.76
19	Oregon	2.50	2.53	2.71	2.61
40	Pennsylvania	1.83	1.80	1.61	1.59
49	Rhode Island	1.43	1.36	1.34	1.26
3	South Carolina	3.03	3.20	2.80	3.45
43	South Dakota	1.67	1.97	1.80	1.51
18	Tennessee	2.43	2.66	2.56	2.63
12	Texas	3.21	3.30	2.69	2.81
41	Utah	1.04	1.56	1.73	1.53
39	Vermont	1.17	1.89	1.44	1.63
10	Virginia	2.61	2.79	2.64	2.97
21	Washington	2.06	2.23	2.39	2.45
28	West Virginia	2.81	2.79	2.09	2.10
32	Wisconsin	2.37	1.87	1.80	1.97
4	Wyoming	2.59	2.56	2.59	3.43

 

 

Metro/Non Metro

The U.S. Department of Agriculture distinguishes between metropolitan and non-metropolitan counties. We used their definitions to separate metropolitan and non-metropolitan recruits in Table 10. Recruitment rates are about 20 percent higher in non-metropolitan counties than they are in metropolitan counties. That said, the vast majority of young people live in metropolitan counties, and those counties provide 81 percent of the military’s total recruits. The breakdown changes across different races. Black, Asian, and Hispanic recruits are more likely to come from metropolitan counties than the average recruit, while Native recruits are much more likely to come from non-metropolitan counties than the average recruit. 

Military Recruitment - Percentage Metro/Non Metro

	Recruitment Rate	Percentage of Recruits	Percentage of White Recruits	Percentage of Black Recruits	Percentage of Asian Recruits	Percentage of Native Recruits
Metro counties	2.2	81%	79%	85%	93%	57%
Non-Metro counties	2.7	19%	21%	15%	7%	43%

 

Recruit Zip Code Income

Unfortunately, the military offers no data on recruits' household incomes. However, we do know the median household income of each recruit’s zip code. Using this data we can explore whether recruits tend to come from poor, middle-class, or wealthy zip codes.

Figure 1 illustrates the likely economic background of military recruits for the years 2005, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010. Each decile on the vertical y-axis represents 10 percent of the youth population, 18-24 years old. The first decile represents the 10 percent coming from the poorest zip codes while the tenth decile represents the wealthiest zip codes. As in past years, youth from both the poorest and the wealthiest zip codes are underrepresented this year. For example, in 2010 only 7 percent of recruits came from the poorest zip codes, even though those zip codes contain 10 percent of the American youth population.

Economy and Recruiting Impact

Last year, NPP analyzed the correlation between unemployment rates and recruitment rates across counties and found very little; this pattern repeated again in FY2010. Although the data does not suggest a strong statistical connection between unemployment rates and recruitment rates, other factors lend support to recruiters' assertions that the poor economy is driving candidates to seek out the armed forces as a career choice.

In terms of sheer numbers, the 7,000 recruit jump in active Army accessions between FY2009 and FY2010 speaks to an increased desire to join the Army, but this information is more powerful in context. The Delayed Entry Program (DEP) is a program which allows recruits to sign a contract which guarantees them a specific military occupation specialty and requires them to arrive at basic training by a certain date. When FY2011 recruitment began in October of 2010, the Army had already fulfilled 50 percent of its recruiting goals for the entire year with recruits in the DEP.4 When the Army is able to fulfill not only the current fiscal year's demands but half of the next, it becomes more difficult for individuals to enlist and overall recruit quality rises as the services take their pick of the best qualified.

Another impact of the influx of candidates, and the ability of recruiters to choose from among them, is the rising education requirements. With the achievement of its Tier 1 goal of 90 percent or better, the Army decided in August of 2010 to discontinue its program to help enlistees earn their GED high school equivalency certificates as part of their training.5

In April 2011 the Army announced that it was lowering the maximum enlistment age from 42 back to 35 (it raised it to 42 in 2006).6 While this did not impact recruiting in FY2010, it is another reflection of the increase in numbers of better qualified recruits.

Not every recruit joined because they were unable to find a job in the civilian sector. What is known, however, is that in FY2010 there was an increase in the number of applications, and the applicants were better qualified than in the past.