Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Manpower decisionmakers need to produce consistent and repeatable cost estimations to understand the budget implications of alternative total force mixes. This report describes a prototype tool researchers created that uses data from the Office of the Secretary of Defense's Full Cost of Manpower (FCoM) model, which includes such cost factors as compensation, health care, recruiting, and training. The prototype tool expands on FCoM by creating a method to streamline cost estimations for large Department of Defense (DoD) organizations, providing summary output in the form of graphs and tables, and allowing the user to run various scenarios in which billet counts are changed and the effect on cost can be observed. In this report, researchers describe the prototype tool and demonstrate its utility on a hypothetical organization to show how it could be used when determining costs for a real organization. With additional development, this tool could be useful for DoD and service personnel involved in manpower policy and decisionmaking, as well as the broader DoD research community.

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Manning the U.S. Space Force, which was established in the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act, will require civilians with high-value skill sets. To ensure that it can attract and retain civilian talent for the Space Force, the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) needs to understand how DoD civilian compensation compares with that in the private sector. In this report, the authors compare monetary and nonmonetary compensation between the DoD civilian and private sectors, focusing on workforces with high-value skill sets: aerospace engineering and four defense acquisition workforces — business and financial management, program management, procurement, and engineering and science. The authors found that predicted average income among DoD civilians is competitive with or exceeds that in the private sector for three defense acquisition workforces: business and financial management, procurement, and engineering and science. However, DoD civilians in aerospace engineering or defense acquisition program management are predicted to earn less than private-sector workers. The authors also found that DoD civilians with less than a bachelor's degree generally earn more than their private-sector counterparts, whereas DoD civilians with a master's degree or more typically earn less than private-sector workers. Moreover, the authors found that predicted average income among DoD civilians covered by demonstration projects is in line with or even higher than that in the private sector, while the opposite is true for other pay plans, including the standard General Schedule (GS) system. Finally, the authors found that the federal government provides more-generous benefits in some cases and less-generous benefits in others.

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Military service members are paid special and incentive (S&I) pays, such as hazardous duty incentive pay and aviation incentive pay, on a prorated basis in proportion to the amount of basic pay they receive in a month. Some observers argue that part-time reserve component (RC) members should be paid at the same full monthly rate as typical active component (AC) members, since RC members are required to undergo the same training as AC members, and the standards RC members must meet to establish proficiencies to receive certain S&I pays are the same as for AC members. Others counter that part-time RC members do not have the same readiness availability as AC members who serve full time. In response to this issue, Congress called for a report on the extension to members of the RC of S&I pays that are currently paid to AC members. In this report, the authors (1) estimate the cost of paying members of the RC, who perform service at the typical rate of four training periods of inactive duty per month (or active duty for less than a full month), the same full monthly rate of S&I pays that AC members receive for performing the S&I pay qualifying service for a full month; (2) estimate the number of RC members who would qualify for each form of S&I pay at the full rate; and (3) consider the feasibility and advisability of paying eligible members of the RC at the full S&I pay rate.

Incentive awards --- United States --- United States. --- Armed Forces --- Reserves --- Pay, allowances, etc.

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Leadership development in the military is a multifaceted process that takes place over an officer's entire career. At its most basic level, this development occurs through professional experiences and a progressive series of professional military education, of which joint professional military education (JPME) is a subset. In May 2020, the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) issued a vision statement with guidance and objectives for leadership development in the armed services. This vision calls for an outcomes-based approach that emphasizes ingenuity, intellectual application, and military professionalism. The new approach focuses on what students must accomplish rather than traditional metrics, such as curriculum content or the amount of time spent learning specific material. The JCS also emphasized the need to integrate officer talent management (TM) and JPME because these functions are so closely connected. To support the implementation of this vision, the authors reviewed foundational, policy, and implementation documents; conducted semistructured interviews with senior representatives of relevant joint and service offices; and analyzed officer personnel data. They used these methods to (1) describe joint educational institutions' transitions to an outcomes-based approach, (2) examine performance expectations and the qualities needed in effective joint officers, (3) explore how joint performance is measured, and (4) see how challenges in TM systems and processes affect the implementation of JPME, Phase II. They also provide recommendations for how joint stakeholders and the military services can best integrate the TM and JPME processes to support the outcomes-based approach.

Armed Forces --- Officers --- Training of. --- United States --- United States --- United States. --- Armed Forces --- Officers --- Education. --- Armed Forces --- Officers --- Training of.