The Army is launching a sweeping overhaul of its recruiting
Source: ABC News/AP
October 3, 2023, 6:15 AM
WASHINGTON -- The Army is launching a sweeping overhaul of its recruiting to focus more on young people who have spent time in college or are job hunting early in their careers, as it scrambles to reverse years of enlistment shortfalls. A major part of this is the formation of a new professional force of recruiters instead of relying on soldiers randomly assigned to the task.
Army Secretary Christine Wormuth, in an interview with The Associated Press, said some of the changes will begin in the next 90 days but a wholesale transformation will take years. We have not been recruiting very well for many more years than one would think from just looking at the headlines in the last 18 months, Wormuth said, adding that the Army hasnt met its annual goal for new enlistment contracts since 2014.
Last year, the Army fell 15,000 short of its enlistment goal of 60,000 while competing with higher-paying companies in a tight job market and trying to overcome two years of the coronavirus pandemic, which shut down access to schools and public events. In the fiscal year that ended Saturday, the Army brought in a bit more than 50,000 recruits, falling short of the publicly stated stretch goal of 65,000.
Army officials, however, said that number still allows the service to meet its required total strength of 452,000. They said the Army also signed up an additional 4,600 recruits for future contracts, in an effort to build back the pool of delayed-entry recruits, which had eroded. Those recruits will go to basic training over the next year.
Read more: https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/army-launching-sweeping-overhaul-recruiting-reverse-enlistment-shortfalls-103680101
TygrBright
(20,792 posts)peppertree
(21,875 posts)Which would be smart.
On the other hand - they know that among young, working-class white men, there are so many like that, that it might narrow down their enlistment pool too much.
Alas - the very people who've ruined their lives, brainwashed them into blaming the people trying to stop it.
"Them lib'ruls are all for the browns and Jews, don'tchaknow!"
NotHardly
(1,062 posts)Trained recruiters in the screening and selection of categories of troops as it regards skills and abilities coupled with additional training and skills development supported by a "safety net" of programs for the lives of those enlistees ... make it long term, just as though what they do has value. Yeah, and it will take years.
peppertree
(21,875 posts)underpants
(183,308 posts)A friend tried for about 6 months to get his son into the military. Ended up in the Navy. Hopefully my experience in the Army was prohibitive in their decision. The Air Force is hard to get in to. The kid had a DUI.
I also know someone who was high level in recruiting for the Guard statewide. He told me he could test an entire small town in this state and about 5 people would have a score they could use. I wont name the state but its typically one of the poorer states.
BumRushDaShow
(130,936 posts)full body tatoos. I recall the military relaxing some of the restrictions, e.g., - https://www.army.mil/article/257828/army_eases_tattoo_restrictions_with_new_policy
But it took awhile to understand that among a couple cohort generations, it's a "thing" and it ain't their (great-) grandfather's Popeye anchor tattoo.
Aristus
(66,662 posts)first person to call me "Sergeant", served a tour of duty as a recruiter.
He hated it. Absolutely hated it. Said it was a waste of time for anyone in a combat arms MOS.
Train recruiters to be recruiters, and stop picking them off the line, was his attitude, which I agree with.
BumRushDaShow
(130,936 posts)so that the "recruiter du jour" can answer questions in a more "trusted" way having had actual field experience. It wouldn't surprise me that some potentials would dismiss a simple administrative H.R. "recruiter" as just a desk jockey.
werdna
(544 posts)- recruiters are allowed, and subtly encouraged, to lie, lie, lie to get you to sign, sign, sign. Read and understand what you are to sign very carefully. If you feel pressured to sign without reading, run like hell!
MarineCombatEngineer
(12,622 posts)my recruiter was very honest with me, in 1964, that I would probably be deployed to Vietnam, and I was, so, this was an honest answer.
Whatthe_Firetruck
(564 posts)"Intergrated Avionics and Comp. Specialist".
I wanted that fourth word to be 'Computer' , because even in 1981 I could see computers were the future.
Alas, it was 'Component'. Which meant I worked in an avionics shop in Plattsburgh AFB repairing malfunctioning modules from the Vietnam era F-111 aardvark, and the KC-135.
pfitz59
(10,473 posts)time to shrink the beast to a manageable size
SomewhereInTheMiddle
(298 posts)I would think it is better to redefine the mission for the Army to shrink it then recruit to meet the new force level needs than to not have enough personnel to meet the current mission and hope that they will not really be needed.
I am not saying the current mission - Two and a half wars - is appropriate, just that I prefer deliberate change to changing based on failed recruiting.
LiberalFighter
(51,869 posts)It can be as low as 81.
I have to wonder if their position determines how they serve? Are some positions low that doesn't require much and if so what are they? Would supply depot be one?
Martin68
(23,187 posts)keithbvadu2
(37,267 posts)Go where the 'patriots' are::: College republicans and Young republicans.
???