TRABAJO EN ALTURA

The data used for our comparison does not consider levels of magnitude between Officer and Enlisted pay scales or account for the effects of inflation over the five-year period studied. We normalized our data using the following methods to present results that can be compared side by side both in time and amount.

1. Relationship of Bonus Amount to Base Pay

Pay data for officers and enlisted personnel cannot be compared directly because of the nature of the pay difference (in amount) between officers and enlisted personnel. To correct for this, we have normalized our data as a ratio of the amount of the bonus received by the service member to the base pay of the service member. While this method does not take into account incentive pays or other special pay types, we feel comparing the amount that service members receive to their base pay levels the playing field between the two categories.

Base pay data was taken from military pay charts for each fiscal year contained in our data set. O-4 base pay was used for officers and E-4, E-6, and E-7 base pay was used for enlisted personnel in fiscal years 2011–2015.

2. Inflation Adjustment

Monetary data obtained was adjusted to a base year of 2015 using inflation indices obtained from the Naval Center for Cost Analysis’ Joint Inflation Calculator (Naval Center for Cost Analysis, 2016). The indices used are shown in Appendix C and were calculated by multiplying the given monetary data obtained from our source material for a given fiscal year by the inflation index of the base year (FY15). Those figures were then used to calculate the rest of the cost data in FY15 dollars. All results are displayed in FY15 dollars.

Reenlistment Bonus and the Officer Retention Bonus. We calculated the Normalized Pay Ratio, the Retention Effectiveness Ratio, and the Average Cost to the Navy to service the contracts. Each of these metrics are explained in the following paragraphs.

1. Given Data

Community managers from the Navy Special Warfare, Surface Warfare, and Aviation Warfare provided the data we used to calculate our metrics for retention effectiveness. Data obtained for Officers consisted of the number of people eligible for a retention contract, the number of service members who accepted those contracts, and the total dollar amount it cost the Navy to service those contracts. For Enlisted service members, the community managers provided us with the number of service members who were eligible for a retention contract, the number of people who accepted those contracts, and the average initial contract payment made to those service members once their contracts began.

2. Calculated Data

We designed the Normalized Pay Ratio (NPR) to level the playing field in terms of pay between Officers and Enlisted service members. The ratio represents the incentive for a service member to be retained. To calculate the ratio, we first converted the annual retention bonus pay and service member annual base pay into FY15 dollars. We then divided the amount the service member would receive per year from their retention contract by the annual base pay for that service member. This ratio will then be compared to the effectiveness ratio to show how well the incentive has worked. A lower NPR means it took less money to incentivize a service member into signing up for a longer contract.

 Officers: We were given the total cost of all contracts (per

community per fiscal year), which we adjusted for inflation. We divided the inflation-adjusted number by the number of personnel who signed retention contracts to arrive at the cost per service member contract. This was then divided by five to reflect our assumption that the contract will be paid out over a five-year period. The result was then divided by the O-4 annual base pay (in

FY15$) to arrive at the Officer Normalization Ratio for a given category.

 Enlisted: We were already given the individual annual contract

payments for Enlisted personnel, so these were simply adjusted to FY15$ then divided by the respective annual base pay (in FY15$) to arrive at the Enlisted Normalization Ratio.

The Retention Effectiveness Ratio (RER) is a simple calculation to show the difference between the number of people who were eligible for a retention contract and the number of people who actually signed a retention contract. This is used in conjunction with the Normalization Ratio to show the overall efficiency of the retention incentive. An effective incentive program would show a low NPR with a high RER.

Finally, the Average Cost to the Navy (ACN) shows the five-year average (in FY15$) of what it cost to fund the retention contracts. This metric shows what it cost the Navy to offer the retention incentive. When compared to the other two metrics, ACN shows how much bang the Navy got for its buck—lower is better.

 Officers: Total cost data for Officers was given, so this amount

simply needed to be converted into FY15$ and then totaled as required.

 Enlisted: Total cost data for Enlisted contracts was calculated by

taking the converted individual annual contract payment and multiplying it by the number of people who signed contracts in that fiscal year.

IV.

RESULTS

The following section describes our results.

A. COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS

The results of our analysis show that the ideal model for retention is a low NPR, high RER, and low ACN. The summary figures that follow present the results of this analysis. First is an aggregate summary of all of our Enlisted data compared to our Officer data across the three warfare specialties studied. This is followed by a breakout of individual warfare communities to show how each community affects the whole.