CHAPTER
7
Measuring Socioeconomic Status |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In FY 1999, the
Survey of Recruit Socioeconomic Backgrounds, first administered in
March 1989, was again administered at recruit training centers. Participants
answered questions about their parents education, employment status,
occupation, and home ownership. While income is a widely used measure
of socioeconomic status, research provides evidence that recruit-aged
youth are not accurate at estimating their parents income.
[2]
Therefore, home ownership was included as a proxy for income. Several researchers
have devised a summary statistic for socioeconomic status.
[3]
The socioeconomic index (SEI), derived from predicted prestige
scores based on levels of income and education within occupations,
is one means of defining socioeconomic status. Stevens and Cho
[4]
developed such scores for each 3-digit occupation code in the
1980 Census, revising earlier work by Duncan, and Featherman et al.
[5]
More recently, this index has been revised by Hauser and Warren
[6]
to incorporate prestige ratings from the General Social Survey
conducted by the National Opinion Research Center,
[7]
as well as occupational income and education data from the 1990
Census. This report uses a version of the SEI that incorporates income
and educational data about both males and females; it is termed the
Total Socioeconomic Index (TSEI). TSEI scores for recruits can be
calculated using parental occupational information reported in the
Survey of Recruit Socioeconomic Backgrounds. In FY 1999, the
Survey of Recruit Socioeconomic Backgrounds was given to both active
duty and Reserve Component recruits without prior military experience.
Approximately 14,100 active duty and 3,500 Reserve Component enlisted
accessions provided information on the marital status, education,
employment, and occupation of their parents.
[8]
The survey requested information on the parents with whom the
recruit was last living, whether they were biological parents, stepparents,
or other legal guardians. Throughout this discussion, these will be
referred to as recruit or DoD parents. For civilians,
similar information is collected by the Bureau of the Census. These
measures include marital status, highest level of education, home
ownership, employment status, and occupation. For comparison, information
is provided for parents of civilian youth between the ages of 14 and
21, inclusive, who were living at home. These data are taken from
the Current Population Survey (CPS), an ongoing survey conducted by
the Bureau of the Census for the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
[9]
They will be referred to as CPS parents. Comparisons between
DoD and CPS parents should be tempered by the fact that the DoD group
does not include officer accessions. Since Active Component officer
accessions represent nearly 8 percent of total Active Component accessions,
adding officer socioeconomic measures could produce a moderate change
in the overall DoD results. However, for most of the variables reported
in this section, including officer data would produce little change
in the reported values, because the civilian and military distributions
are quite similar. Specific areas in which adding officer data might
change the comparisons will be noted in the following discussion.
[1]
Ibid.
[2]
Ibid.
[3]
Stevens, G. and Cho, J.H., Socioeconomic Indices and
the New 1980 Census Occupational Classification Scheme, Social
Science Research, 14 (1985), pp. 142168.
[4]
Ibid.
[5]
See Duncan, O.D., A Socioeconomic Index for All Occupations,
in A.J. Reiss, Jr. (Ed.), Occupations and Social Status (New
York: Free Press, 1981), pp. 139161; Featherman, D.L., Jones, F.L.,
and Hauser, R.M., Assumptions of Social Mobility Research in the
U.S.: The Case of Occupational Status, Social Science Research,
4 (1975), pp. 329360.
[6]
Hauser, R.M. and Warren, J.R. Socioeconomic Indexes
for Occupations: A Review, Update, and Critique (Madison, WI:
Center for Demography and Ecology, June 1996).
[7]
Nakao, K. and Treas, J., Updating Occupational Prestige
and Socioeconomic Scores: How the New Measures Measure Up, in P.
Marsden (Ed.), Sociological Methodology, 1994 (Washington,
DC: American Sociological Association, 1994), pp. 172.
[8]
Navy recruits who said that they were in the TARS program
were counted as active duty recruits.
[9]
To facilitate comparison between the military and civilian
data sets, the CPS data were weighted to match the military data
in terms of age. CPS sample weights were ratio‑adjusted to
age distributions, in 5-year intervals, of recruits parents. Consequently,
the adjusted CPS data contain the same percentage of parents in
a specific gender and age group (e.g., male parents age 4044) as
the military data set. When sample sizes are large, small differences
in magnitude can be statistically significant. For comparisons
between DoD and CPS parents, any difference greater than about one
percentage point is statistically significant; the comparable figure
for comparisons between Services or between active duty and Reserve
Components is 3 percent. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
back | next | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||