Retention and Recruitment Crisis

In 2013, the Marine Corps released an administrative message with an intriguing offer: Through a special pilot program, troops could hit pause on their active-duty career and transition to the Individual Ready Reserve for up to three years — giving them the chance to go to school, start a family or fulfill some other non-military pursuit.
. . .
According to Lt. Col. Emma Wood, a project manager with the Marine Corps’ Strategic Talent Management Group, as of Nov. 24 of last year, only 16 Marines have taken advantage of the service’s Career Intermission Program, or CIP, since it stood up as a pilot. And the individuals who have opted into the program don’t fit a specific category.
Click to expand...

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/...kers-for-marines-career-intermission-program/

A lot of interesting things within this article, every service has CIP. And I can tell you, that the amount of personnel taking CIP are minimal. It's seemingly because of how accessions treats you. You generally become non-competitive versus people who stayed on track and never left active duty and just grinded out crazy assignments. Traditionally in the Army (not the Corps) instructor roles have been where Officers take their knee. Whether that is at a schoolhouse, Service Academy, or ROTC APMS roles. Marines Historically have made instructor roles highly competitive, Army has made other roles highly competitive or at least looked better as on the 'ol ORB.

For certain MOSs there are roles to take a knee at that keep you competitive but non-deployable. Like an AG officer taking an assignment at a MEPS as an example.

It certainly doesn't work for direct support or combat MOSs I can tell you that. An Infantry or Armor Officer will be looked at way differently by doing CIP for three years instead of doing post Company Command ROTC instructing and getting a master's degree online. He just won't.
 
ThunderHorse said:
In 12 years, almost no takers for Marines’ career intermission program

A lot of interesting things within this article, every service has CIP. And I can tell you, that the amount of personnel taking CIP are minimal. It's seemingly because of how accessions treats you. You generally become non-competitive versus people who stayed on track and never left active duty and just grinded out crazy assignments. Traditionally in the Army (not the Corps) instructor roles have been where Officers take their knee. Whether that is at a schoolhouse, Service Academy, or ROTC APMS roles. Marines Historically have made instructor roles highly competitive, Army has made other roles highly competitive or at least looked better as on the 'ol ORB.

For certain MOSs there are roles to take a knee at that keep you competitive but non-deployable. Like an AG officer taking an assignment at a MEPS as an example.

It certainly doesn't work for direct support or combat MOSs I can tell you that. An Infantry or Armor Officer will be looked at way differently by doing CIP for three years instead of doing post Company Command ROTC instructing and getting a master's degree online. He just won't.
Click to expand...

I don't think we had it in my day. I did know a couple sailors do it after I got out, but not sure how it affected their careers.
 
CIP for Marines is a stupid idea. You’re taking three years in scuzzy civilian IRR getting fat and lazy and then go back in for double the time you took off? I’d love to present that idea to a room full of Lance Corporal’s just to hear the comments.
 
Gunz said:
CIP for Marines is a stupid idea. You’re taking three years in scuzzy civilian IRR getting fat and lazy and then go back in for double the time you took off? I’d love to present that idea to a room full of Lance Corporal’s just to hear the comments.
Click to expand...

All branches have it, and I think it's a great idea. I just think the 'N' who'd be interested is pretty small.
 
So are we "meeting mission" on recruiting, or are we "meeting the mission numbers after we lowered what we said we needed because we got tired of getting called out for not meeting our mission numbers?"
 
Gunz said:
Why even offer it if only 16 Marines have taken it in the 12 years since its inception?
Click to expand...

I'd say for those 16 it made a difference.

It's neither new nor exclusive to the Marines, and over 95% of all people who take advantage go back in and stay until retirement. Now it's worth asking what percentage would NOT have if this program was not available. I'd like to see that number.
 
Gunz said:
Why even offer it if only 16 Marines have taken it in the 12 years since its inception?
Click to expand...
Devildoc said:
I'd say for those 16 it made a difference.

It's neither new nor exclusive to the Marines, and over 95% of all people who take advantage go back in and stay until retirement. Now it's worth asking what percentage would NOT have if this program was not available. I'd like to see that number.
Click to expand...

I wonder what the cost-benefit analysis is like. The article said that the Marine Corps spent over $175,000 on CIP in just the first three years of the program. In 12 years they had 16 takers, so I'm going to assume every three years they had four participants. So that program cost the US $43,750 each.

So the question is, did the Marine Corps get $43,000 for each Marine in the program? Given how much it costs to recruit, train, and retain military personnel, the answer very well may be "yes."
 
Marauder06 said:
So are we "meeting mission" on recruiting, or are we "meeting the mission numbers after we lowered what we said we needed because we got tired of getting called out for not meeting our mission numbers?"
Click to expand...
Well, consider that we had our last RIF in the 2016/2017 timeframe under Obama. Then we tried to reverse course under Trump and then we reduced authorized end strength under Jill because we couldn't recruit bodies. So this is best recruiting numbers since 2012 which was the second RIF under Obama.

Cookie_ said:
The fat & dum-dum camps went a long way towards pumping up our numbers, though quality of end soldier is debatable.

This is a good sign, but I'm gonna give it a few more months before I get to excited about it.
Click to expand...

Wish they also had fat camp at OSUT because the standard to graduate and go to assigned unit is 50% on the ACFT just as it was on the APT. Comparatively when you look at a Marine graduation all of those guys are lean MFs.
 
Cookie_ said:
The fat & dum-dum camps went a long way towards pumping up our numbers, though quality of end soldier is debatable.

This is a good sign, but I'm gonna give it a few more months before I get to excited about it.
Click to expand...
In December and January, they far exceeded goals- the Army got a little streak going. To @Marauder06 point above- don't bother trusting any of those numbers. The AF is notorious for adjusting their goals around Q3 for their expectations- oddly enough, those numbers are always lower.

From talking to "these darn kids" a lot, I will say- the woke ideology and nonsense were a huge barrier to service. If not top 2, definitely top 3. In some order, it's "I wanna fight in the war and no wars," "I don't want to deal with the woke garbage," and "I suck and won't make it anyway, and I don't want to chip paint off an aircraft carrier" (that last one is a paraphrase).

We have seen reflections anecdotally as well; we have gotten a TON of messages asking if it'll stick, what it means for the military, etc.

I think you're correct, though; I'll just wait and see if the trend continues.
 
AWP said:
The easiest job in the world right after 9/11 was recruiting. That became a bad job around 07-08 when we needed people for the GWOT and began letting some really sketchy folks wear a uniform.
Click to expand...

I have a friend, long since retired, who was a Marine recruiter 2000-2003. He said that even before 9/11 he was doing pretty good; after 9/11 they were turning people down, he told me once (paraphrasing) 'we sent them to the army because they'd take anyone.'

He also said that contrary to popular opinion, the higher IQ candidate, the better ASVAB scores, came in wanting infantry contracts. He's try to steer them to high IQ jobs, but they were adamant. At one point they had a 18-month backlog because SOI was so backlogged.
 
AWP said:
That became a bad job around 07-08 when we needed people for the GWOT and began letting some really sketchy folks wear a uniform.
Click to expand...

Yes - but SMA Chandler fixed all of that when he outlawed tattoos and reminded everyone that if you don't shave on the weekends and wear your dog tags 24/7 that you are a shit bag.

C'mon man...
...do you even army?
 
Devildoc said:
I have a friend, long since retired, who was a Marine recruiter 2000-2003. He said that even before 9/11 he was doing pretty good; after 9/11 they were turning people down, he told me once (paraphrasing) 'we sent them to the army because they'd take anyone.'

He also said that contrary to popular opinion, the higher IQ candidate, the better ASVAB scores, came in wanting infantry contracts. He's try to steer them to high IQ jobs, but they were adamant. At one point they had a 18-month backlog because SOI was so backlogged.
Click to expand...
That's what a lot of people don't understand about the Army and the Marine Corps. Many people, perhaps most people, join because they want to serve, and they want to challenge themselves. "What's the manliest thing you've got?? I want that."

Plenty of people join for other reasons, like college money, job skills, get out of a bad situation, etc. And I'm OK with that. But the types of recruits you want, and ultimately we need the most of, are attracted to a "be all you can be" Army and a "dragon slaying" Marine Corps. Not "my two moms."
 
Marauder06 said:
That's what a lot of people don't understand about the Army and the Marine Corps. Many people, perhaps most people, join because they want to serve, and they want to challenge themselves. "What's the manliest thing you've got?? I want that."

Plenty of people join for other reasons, like college money, job skills, get out of a bad situation, etc. And I'm OK with that. But the types of recruits you want, and ultimately we need the most of, are attracted to a "be all you can be" Army and a "dragon slaying" Marine Corps. Not "my two moms."
Click to expand...

When I joined the navy I did it explicitly to do field med with the Marines. The recruiter was stymied. He was like, "no CT tech? No PMT? Nothing so you can get a cushy billet and skills for the outside?" I said, "no, field med or I walk to the army for combat medic." He made it happen.

I agree. I don't care why people join so long as they join to be part of the Team. If I wanted to be a radiology tech or lab tech I could have done that anywhere for more money and a better schedule.
 

Similar threads

Ravage
In Afghanistan, A U.S. Special Forces Major's Meteoric Rise And Humiliating Fall
2 3 4
Replies
68
Views
23K
Poccington
Poccington
QC
Al-Qaida faces recruitment crisis
Replies
1
Views
1K
JBS
JBS
B
Counterinsurgency Redux
Replies
4
Views
4K
CQB
CQB
Back
Top