First-Enlistment Personnel Job Tasks and Performance in the US Military, Slides of Law

Download First-Enlistment Personnel Job Tasks and Performance in the US Military and more Slides Law in PDF only on Docsity! ,.---- ->--~-~------------------- UNITED STATES AIR FORCE SECURITY POLICE C~EER LADDERS AFSCs 811XO, 811X2,L-AND 811X2A AFPT 90-811-531 NOVEMBER 1984 OCCUPATIONAL ANALYSIS PROGRAM USAF OCCUPATIONAL MEASUREMENT CENTER AIR TR~NING COMMAND RANDOlPK--AFB, TEXAS 78150 APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE; DISTRIBUTION UNLIMITED If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. ---::------------------------------~----~- DISTRIBUTION FOR AFSC 811XX OSR AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS AFHRL/MODS AFHRL/ID AFMEA/MEMD AFMPC/MPCMCA ARMY OCCUPATIONAL SURVEY BRANCH CCAF/AYX DEFENSE TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTER HQ AAC/DPAT HQ AFISC/DAP HQ AFLC/MPCA HQ AFOSP/SPI (KIRTLAND AFB NM 87117) HQ AFOSP/SPO (KIRTLAND AFB NM 87117) HQ AFOSP/SPOTF (KIRTLAND AFB NM 87117) HQ AFOSP/SPP (KIRTLAND AFB NM 87117) HQ AFSC/MPAT HQ ATC/DPAE HQ ATC/TTQC HQ ESC/DPTATC HQ ESC/DPTE HQ MAC/DPAT HQ MAC/DPA-ATC HQ PACAF/DPAL HQ PACAF/DPAT HQ SAC/DPAT HQ SAC/DPATC (ATCLO) HQ TAC/DPAT HQ TAC/DPLATC HQ USAF/MPPT HQ USAFA/DPM (USAF ACADEMY CO 80840) HQ USAFE/DPAT HQ USAFE/DPATC HQ USMC (CODE TPI) LMDC/AN NODAC USAFOMC, DET 1 (LACKLAND AFB TX 78236) 3250 TCHTW/TTGX (LACKLAND AFB TX) 3507 ACS/DPKI m = microfiche only h = hard copy only ANL OSR EXT 2 1m 1 1m 1 Ih 2 1 1 1 3 1 3 1 1 2 Ih 1 3 1 2 1 2 3 1 1 3 3 1 3 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 5 2 1 i TNG JOB EXT INV 1m Im/lh 1 3 3 1 1 2 2 1 3 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 3 3 1 3 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 9 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) PAGE NUMBER 811X2 MAJCOM COMPARISONS .••....•.••••.••....•.••....•..•••••••.. 70 Summary •• O.II •• (I ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ~ •••• • •• " ••• e.. 70 SECTION IV - ANALYSIS OF 811X2A DAFSC GROUPS ••.••...••.••.••..•• 72 Skill Level Descriptions .•••••....••..•...••••.•.••...•..•• 72 Sum~l1ary • It • • • • •• •• •• •••• •• •• •••• •••• •• • ••••• • •••• • •• •••••• •• 73 ANALYSIS OF 811X2A AFR 39-1 SPECIALTY DESCRIPTIONS .....•••••••.. 77 ANALYSIS OF 811X2A TAFMS GROUPS •••••••••••..••.••...•.••••••.•.• 79 811X2A TRAINING ANALYSIS •.•.•.•.•••••••••••••••...•••.. ~........ 82 Fi rst-En 1 i stment Personnel................................. 82 Training Emphasis ••••..•••.••.•••••••••••.•.•.•••••.•...••• 82 Paragraph 19, 811X2 Specialty Training Standard (STS) .• ,.... 83 811X2A Plan of Instruction •.•.•...•.•••••••..••.••••.•••••• 83 811X2A MAJCOM COMPARISONS ....................................... 87 Summary ••••.••••••••••••••••••••• 0......................... 87 SECTION V - COMPARISON OF CURRENT SURVEY TO PREVIOUS SURVEy.... 89 IMP L I CAT IONS ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• a , • 93 APPENDIX A - SELECTED REPRESENTATIVE TASKS FOR CAREER LADDER S TRUCTURE GROL~PS ••••••••••••• II •••••••••••••••••• II • • • .. • • • • • • • • • 94 APPENDIX B - SECURITY POLICE CAREER FIELD WEAPONS, EQUIPMENT, AND TACTICS TRAINING EMPHAS IS DATA TABLES ..................... 95 iii • ----~----.------------------------------ PREFACE This report presents the results of a detailed Air Force Occupational Survey of the Security Police career field (AFSCs 811XO, 811X2, and 811X2A). The project was directed by USAF Program Technical Training, Volume Two, dated October 1982. Computer printouts from which this report was produced are available for use by operating and training officials. The survey instrument was developed by Mr Hank Dubois, Inventory Development Specialist, with computer programming support furnished by Ms Olga Velez. Mr Robert L. Alton, Occupational Analyst, analyzed the data and wrote the final report. This report has been reviewed and approved for release by Lieutenant Colonel Jimmy L. Mitchell, Chief, Airman Career Ladders Analysis Section, Occupational Analysis Branch, USAF Occupational Measurement Center. . Copies of this report a~e distributed to Air Staff sections, major com­ mands, and other interested training and management personnel (see DISTRIBUTION on page i). Additional copies are available upon request to the USAF Occupational Measurement Center, Attention: Chief, Occupational Analysis Branch (OMY), Randolph AFB, Texas 78150-5000 (AUTOVON 487-5811) . PAUL T. RINGENBACH, Colonel, USAF Commander USAF Occupational Measurement Center iv WALTER E. DRISKILL, Ph. D. Chief, Occupational Analysis Branch USAF Occupational Measurement Center ': : SUIvIMARY OF RESULTS 1. Survey Coverage: The 811XX career ladders were surveyed at the request of the USAF Security Police Academy, Lackland AFB, Texas. A combined job inventory was administered worldwide between July and December 1983. The 6,390 respondents comprising the final sample included 3,955 members holding DAFSC 811XO (76 percent of the eligible assigned personnel), 1,794 airmen reporting DAFSC 811X2 (78 percent of the eligible assigned personnel), 410 respondents holding DAFSC 811X2A (54 percent of the eligible assigned personnel), and 231 NCOs reporting DAFSC 81199/CEM Code 81100 (63 percent of the eligible assigned personnel). The overall 811XX career field, as well as all using major commands, were well repre.:. sented in the survey sample. . 2. Specialty Jobs: Five clusters and 14 independent job types were identi­ fied in the career ladder structure analysis. Four clusters and 13 of the independent job types were involved in the performance of various technical security and law enforcement duties of the career ladders involved. The remaining cluster was oriented toward supervisory, managerial, and staff-type work, while the remaining individual job group was committed to training functions. 3. Career Ladder Progression: In both career ladders and the A -shred, 3- and 5-skill level jobs were primarily technical, with little responsibility for supervision or management. Supervisory, training, and administrative func­ tions became the more dominant characteristics of the 7-skill level jobs in each ladder, although a variety of technical tasks were still performed. Nine-skill and CEM Code level personnel were performing a predominantly staff-type job and are the primary managers in the career field. 4. AFR 39-1 Specialty Descriptions: Descriptions for the 811XO ladder and the Superintendent level were found to be complete and to accurately portray the nature of the jobs. Some adjustments are suggested for the 811X2/ A descriptions which will improve their accuracy. 5. Training Analysis: The STS for each career ladder is generally supported by survey data. Both the 811XO and 811X?, \ documents do require some review for possible adjustments to proficiency codes and the extent of coverage of some elements. Review of the tasks not referenced to these documents indicates that neither STS covers the armory function tasks performed by 811XX personnel. POIs for the 81lXO and 811X2 ABR courses are generally supported by survey data, but each contains two units of instruction which require review due to the low percentage of first-term airmen performing tasks trained. 6. Implications: The current classification structure is clearly supported by survey data. The training system supporting the field is functioning well generally, although some adjustments should be considered. Job satisfaction indicators for 81lXO personnel are extremely low (although up from the 1974 study findings), and the specific circumstances contributing to this dissatis­ faction need to be identified and receive the attention of career field managers and supervisory personnel. v -----------------------------------------------------------~ SURVEY METHODOLOGY Inventory Development The data collection instrument for this occupational survey was USAF Job Inventory AFPT 90-811-531, dated February 1983. A tentative task list was prepared after reviewing pertinent career ladder publications and directives, tasks from the previous survey instrument, and data from the last occupa­ tional survey report (OSR). The task list was then evaluated in the field through personal interviews with subject-matter specialists in operational units and at the Security Police Academy. Further, the survey instrument was forwarded to each major command utilizing significant numbers of 811XX resources for their technical review and comments by additional senior subject-matter specialists in the career ladders. The resulting job inventory contained a comprehensive listing of 666 tasks grouped under 17 duty headings and a background section containing such information as grade, duty title, time in service, job satisfaction, functional assignment, air base ground defense responsibilities, and weapons, equipment, and tactics used. Survey Administration From July through December 1983, Consolidated Base Personnel Offices (CBPO) in operational units worldwide administered the inventory to job incumbents holding DAFSC 811XX. These job incumbents were selected from a computer-generated mailing list obtained from personnel data tapes main­ tained by the Air Force Human Resources Laboratory (AFHRL). Each individual who completed the inventory first completed an identifi­ cation and biographical information section and then checked each task performed in their current job. After checking all tasks performed, each member then rated each of these tasks on a 9-point scale showing relative time spent on that task, as compared to all other tasks checked. The ratings ranged from one (very small amount time spent) through five (about average time spent) to nine (very large amount time spent). To determine relative time spent for each task checked by a respondent, all of an incumbent's ratings are assumed to account for 100 percent of his or her time spent on the job and are summed. Each task rating is then divided by the total task ratings and multiplied by 100 to provide a relative percent­ age of time for each task. This procedure provides a basis for comparing tasks in terms of both percent members performing and average percent time spent. 3 - - Survey Sample Personnel were selected to participate in this survey so as to ensure an accurate representation across major commands (MAJCOM) and paygrade groups. Due to the large numbers of assigned 811XX personnel, a stratified random sample )rocess was used to select survey participants. While approximately 20 percent of the assigned airmen in the 811XO and 811X2 ladders were identified as eligible for survey participation, larger percentages of A-shred (50 percent) ann 81199 and 81100 personnel (66 percent) wer~ selected. This was done to assure an adequate number of booklet returns from the much fewer numbers in those groups. Table 1 reflects the percent':' age distribution, by major command, of assigned personnel in the career ladders as of April 1983. Also listed in this table is the MAJCOM distribution of survey respondents in the final sample. The 6,390 respondents in the final sample represent 17 percent of the total assigned 811XX personnel. Table 2 reflects the paygrade group distribution, while Table 3 lists the sample distribution by TAFMS groups (note the large percentages of per­ sonnel in the first-enlistment groups for each ladder and shred) . As reflected in these. tables, the survey sample is a very good representation of the career ladder population. 4 == VI TABLE 1 CmfrIAND REPRESENTATION OF SURVEY SAMPLE 811XO 811X2 811X2A PERCENT OF PERCENT OF PERCENT OF CmfrIAND ASSIGNED SAMPLE ASSIGNED SAC 54 54 17 USAFE 17 16 17 TAC 10 10 13 MAC 8 8 13 PACAF 5 5 12 ATC 1 2 15 AFSC * 1 6 AFLC 1 1 4 OTHER 4 3 3 TOTAL 100 100 100 811XO Total Assigned 24,531 Total Eligible for Surve~~* 5,218 Total in Sample 3,955 Percent of Assigned in Sample 16% Percent of Eligible in Sample 76% Total Assigned (All 811XX Personnel) - 37,641 Total 811XX Personnel in Final Sample - 6,390 Percent of Total 811XX Personnel in Sample - 17% PERCENT OF PERCENT OF PERCENT OF SAMPLE ASSIGNED SAMPLE 18 23 20 16 13 13 13 11 11 14 11 10 10 20 20 16 13 15 4 2 2 4 6 7 5 1 2 - 100 100 100 811X2 811X2A 81199/81100 10,827 1,693 590 2,314 753 364 1,794 410 231 17% 24% 39% 78% 54% 63% 81199/81100 PERCENT OF PERCENT OF ASSIGNED SAMPLE 36 32 14 16 13 17 10 9 8 4 7 7 3 3 2 3 7 9 100 100 * Indicates less than 1 percent ~k Stratified random sample (excludes persons in PCS status, hospital, or less than six weeks on the job) NOTE: Manning figures as of April 1983 ,"''!. r';i~" I Task Factor Administration While most participants in the survey process completed a job inventory I selected senior 811XX personnel were asked to complete booklets rendering judgments on task training emphasis (TE) I weapons I equipment I and tactics training emphasis I and task difficulty (TD). The TE and TD booklets were processed separately from the job inventories. The rating information is then used in a number of different analyses discussed in more detail elsewhere in the report. Task Difficulty (TD). Each individual completing a task difficulty booklet was asked to rate all of the tasks on a 9-point scale (from extremely low to extremely high) as to the relative difficulty of each task in the inven­ tory. Difficulty is defined as the length of time required by the average member to learn to do the task. Task difficulty data were independently collected from 160 experienced 7-skill level 811XX personnel stationed world­ wide (see Table 4 for a display of rater distribution by command). While SAC appears to be slightly underrepresented and ATe slightly overrepre­ sented in overall percentages I interrater agreement is not adversely affected. All raters were asked to assess the difficulty of tasks with which they were familiar, regardless of career ladder orientation of the task. Four separate sets of TD data were analyzed. These included TD data as rated by respondents of all three career ladders combined (160 members) and data for each career ladder separately as rated by members of each specific specialty (58 AFse 811XO raters, 68 AFse 811X2 raters, and 34 AFSe 811X2A raters). The interrater reliability (as assessed through components of variance of standard group means) for the combined 811XX raters was extremely high at .98. Taken separately, the interrater reliability was .94 for 811XO personnel, .96 for 811X2 personnel, and .90 for 811X2A raters. These findings suggest that task difficulty ratings may be used together or independently. Ratings were adjusted so tasks of average difficulty have ratings of 5.00. The resulting data are essentially a rank ordering of tasks indicating the degree of difficulty for each task in the inventory. Job Difficulty Index (JDI). After computing the combined 81lXX task difficulty index for each task item, it was then possible to compute a Job Difficulty Index (JDI) for the job group;; identified in the survey analysis. This index provides a relative measure of which jobs, when compared to other jobs identified, are more or less difficult. An equation using the number of tasks performed and the average difficulty per unit time spent (ADPUTS) as variables are the basis for the JDI. Thus, the more time a group spends on difficult tasks I and the more tasks they perform, the higher the JDI for that group. The index ranges from 1.00 for very easy jobs to 25.00 for very difficult jobs. The indices are adjusted so the average job difficulty index is 13.00. Task Training Emphasis (TE). Individuals completing task training emphasis booklets were asked to rate tasks on a 10-point scale (from no training required to extremely heavy training required). Training emphasis is a rating of which tasks require structured training for first-term personnel. Structured training is defined as training provided at resident technical schools, field training detachments (FTD), hy mobile training teams 8 --'-~'----------'l (MTT), formal OJT, or any other organized training method. Training emphasis data were independently collected from experienced 7-skill level personnel (6q AFSC 811XO raters, 64 AFSC 811X2 raters, and 33 AFSC 811X2A raters) stationed worldwide (see Table 4). The interrater reliability (as assessed through components of variance of standard group means) was . q7 for 811XO raters, .97 for 811X2 raters, and .95 for 811X2A raters. This indicates that within each career ladder there was very high agreement among raters as to which tasks required some form of structured training and which did not. In the 811XO specialty I tasks rated high in training emphasis had ratings of 3.56 or above. Tasks rated high in training emphasis for the 811X2 career ladder had ratings of 3.80 or above, while in AFSC 811X2A, ratings of 3.54 or above are considered high in training emphasis. ~ons, Equipment, and Tactics Training Emphasis. Along with the ratings on tasks, data were also gathered on the training emphasis required on weapons, equipment, and tactics used by 811XX career field personnel. While similar in many respects to the task training emphasis rating process discussed above, there were variations that merit discussion. Security Police training personnel compiled a listing (later validated in field reviews) of various types of weapons (L e., M-16 Rifle; M-203 Grenade Launcher), equip­ ment items (Le., Gas Masks; Breath Analyzers), and tactics (such as Low Crawl; Vehicle Search) on which they wished to capture data. Individuals responding to the booklets containing these items were advised that training emphasis is a rating of which items, in their judgment, require training in basic resident technical training courses. They were further advised, "In making your judgments on items to be trained and their priority, consider da~-!.<2...-day, contingency, and emergency operations". Respondents were then as ed to rate each item on a 10-point scale (from no basic resident training needed to extremely high basic resident training emphasis). Weapons, equip­ men t, and tactics TE data were independently collected from 70 highly experienced AFSC 81199 and CEM Code 81100 personnel stationed worldwide (see Table 5 for a display of rater distribution across commands). The interrater reliability for the raters on these items was extremely high (.97) I indicating that there was very high agreement among raters as to which items required basic resident technical training for personnel entering the Security Police career field. Items rated high in training emphasis have ratings of 5.20 or above, with an average training emphasis of 3.54. Appendix B contains a series of tables displaying ~mphasis ratings by categories of items, with percent of first-term personnel from each career ladder responding to each item. When used in conjunction with other factors, such as percent members performing, the task difficulty and training emphasis ratings discussed above can provide an insight into training requirements. Such insights may help validate lengthening or shortening portions of instruction supporting various AFSC needed knowledges or skills on tasks or on weapons, equipment, and tactics items. 9 MAJCOM SAC USAFE TAC MAC PACAF ATC AFSC AFLC OTHER TOTAL rzmrs szs= '! TABLE 4 COMMAND DISTRIBUTION OF ALL 811XX TASK DIFFICULTY AND TRAINING EMPHASIS RATERS PERCENT OF 7-SKILL LEVELS PERCENT OF TASK PERCENT OF TRAINING ASSIGNED DIFFICULTY RATERS EMPHASIS RATERS 33 26 33 17 19 12 14 13 15 10 11 10 6 5 6 10 16 15 4 4 3 2 3 4 4 3 2 100 100 100 10 LAW ENFORCEMENT FUNCTIONAL AREA 1. LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL CLUSTER (GRP179, N=l, 167) A. Patrolmen and Installation Entry Controllers (GRP686, N=589) B. Law Enforcement Flight Chiefs (GRP783, N=278) C. Desk Sergeants (GRP543, N=49) D. Intermediate Headquarters Elite Guards (GRP780, N=32) E. Investigators (GRP496, N=103) II. MILITARY WORKING DOG (MWD) HANDLER PERSONNEL CLUSTER (GRP241, N=350) A. Patrol and Detector Dog Handlers (GRP831, N=219) B. Patrol Dog Handlers (GRP778, N=38) C. tThm Trainers and Supervisors (GRP827, N=64) III. KENNEL SUPPORT SPECIALISTS (GRP072, N=37) SECURITY FUNCTIONAL AREA IV. AIRCRAFT AND MUNITIONS SECURITY PERSONNEL CLUSTER (GRP243, (N=1,602) A. Emergency Service Team (EST) Members (GRP431, N=32) B. Area Sentries (GRP315, N=204) C. Area Supervisors and Response Force Leaders (GRP578, N=229) D. Area Sentries and Response Force Team Members (GRP595, N=712) E. Security Controllers (GRP439, N=119) F. Alarm Systems Monitors (GRP658, N=186) V. MISSILE SECURITY PERSONNEL CLUSTER (GRP186, N=403) A. Missile Response Force Personnel (GRP638, N=181) B. Security Escort Team (SET) Members (GRP628, N=85) C. Flight Security Controllers (GRP312, N=108) VI. KEYS AND CODES CONTROLLERS (GRP492, N=22) VII. ARMORERS (GRP339, N=205) VIII. AIR BASE GROUND DEFENSE (ABGD) PERSONNEL (GRP139, N=362) 13 OTHER JOBS IX. ELITE GATE GUARDS (GRP399, N=38) X. MILITARY CUSTOMS INSPECTORS (GRP694, N=19) XI. MANAGEMENT AND STAFF PERSONNEL CLUSTER (GRP132, N=508) A. Branch and Section Supervisors (GRP245, N=317) B. Quality Control and Inspection NCOs (GRP273, N=96) C. Arms and Equipment NCOs (GRP277, N=52) XII. SECURITY FLIGHT CHIEFS (GRP157, N=365) XIII. TRAINING PERSONNEL (GRP159, N=157) XIV. PLANS AND PROGRAMS NCOs (GRP253, N=12) XV. INFORMATION SECURITY PROGRAM PERSONNEL (GRP195, N=78) XVI. CRIME PREVENTION AND RESOURCE PROrECTION PERSONNEL (GRP433, N=65) XVII. CORRECTIONS OR DETENTION PERSONNEL (GRP265, N=79) XVIII. REPORTS AND ANALYSIS SPECIALISTS (GRP244, N=42) XIX. PASS AND REGISTRATION PERSONNEL (GRP185, N=90) Eighty-eight percent of the respondents in the sample perform jobs generally equivalent to the 5 clusters and 14 independent job types listed above. The remaining 12 percent were performing tasks or series of tasks that did not group with any of the defined job groups. Some of the job titles given by respondents which were representative of these personnel included Supply Clerk, Mobility Equipment Custodian, and Squadron Scheduler. Group Descriptions The following paragraphs contain brief job descriptions of the clusters and independent job types identified through the career ladder structure analysis. Selected background and job satisfaction data are provided for those groups in Tables 6 and 7. Representative tasks for all clusters, job types within the clusters, and independent job types are contained in Appendix A. 1. LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL CLUSTER (GRPI79). This cluster of 1,167 airmen (second largest group in the career ladder structure) repre­ sents 18 percent of the survey sample. Consisting primarily of 81lX2 career ladder personnel (90 percent of the group), 58 percent of the incumbents 14 • TOTAL SAMPLE (N=6,390) FIGURE 1 811XX CAREER LADDER STRUCTURE o o CLUSTER INDEPENDENT JOB TYPE 15 GRP 72 --{ID . 492 RP 18S RP 244 GRP 6S RP 2S3 GRP 694 RP 399 - KENNEL SUPPORT SPECIALISTS (N=37) KEYS AND CODES CONTROLLERS (N=22) PASS AND REGISTRATION PERSONNEL (N=90) REPORTS AND ANALYSIS SPECIALISTS (N=42) CORRECTIONS OR DETENTION PERSONNEL (N=79) CRIME PREVENTION AND RESOURCE PROTECTION PERSONNEL (N=6S) INFORMATION SECURITY PROGRAM PERSONNEL (N=78) PLANS AND PROGRAMS NCOs (N=12) TRAINING PERSONNEL (N=lS?) SECURITY FLIGHT CHIEFS (N=365) MANAGEMENT AND STAFF PERSONNEL CLUSTER (N=S08) MILITARY CUSTOMS INSPECTORS (N=19) ELITE GATE GUARDS N=38) AIR BASE GROUND DEFENSE (ABGD) PERSONNEL (N=362) ARMORERS (N=20S) SECURITY MISSILE SECURITY FUNCTIONAL PERSONNEL CLUSTER AREA (N=403) AIRCRAFT & MUNITIONS SECURITY PERSONNEL CLUSTER (N=1,602) rULITARY WORKING DOG LAW (MWD) HANDLER PERSONNEL CLUSTER (N=3S0) ENFORCEMENT FUNCTIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AREA PERSONNEL CLUSTER (N=1,167) Fire Teams, or Security Response Teams. At the other end of the spectrum for this cluster is the Alarm Systems Monitors job type (186 airmen). Included in this group are personnel who man arl.d operate the Master Surveillance Control Facilities, performing tasks involving equipment such as closed circuit televisions, cameras, and various types of alarm mechanisms. The remaining ~')bs (Emergency Service Team Members I Area Sentries I Area Supervisors an j Response Force Leaders I and Security Controllers) are formed by personnel performing a variety of activities I such as rot'.tine sentry duty I dispatching response forces I and first-line supervision. V. MISSILE SECURITY PERSONNEL CLUSTER (GRP186). Tasks per­ formed in support of security operaiions for missile sites and complexes distinguish this cluster of 403 811XO airmen (6 percent of the survey sample) from the security personnel discussed above. Spending 80 percent of their relative job time on tasks and duties pertaining to general security functions, missile security operations, and individual weapons maintenance, these mostly 5- and 3-skill level members (71 percent and 20 percent, respectively) are primarily involved in controlling entry to launch or launch control facilities I responding to alarms, and escorting other personnel (such as maintenance workers) where required. Of the average 42 tasks performed, typical ones include: maintaining classified code material used for missile entry control inspecting physical condition, security, and access to "1issile sites receiving and opening A circuit combinations conducting metal detection searches of visitors to missile facilities authenticating identity using code material when entering launch facility With an average grade between E-3 and E-4, 78 percent of these 811XO personnel are still in their first enlistment (highest percentage of the 5 clusters in the sample) and report the least experience (an average of 36 months in the career field) of any cluster identified. VI. KEYS AND CODES CONTROLLERS (GRP492). This small group of 22 SAC personnel spend 53 percent of their relative job time performing a very limited, specialized job (averaging only 17 tasks) involving the control and issue of keys and codes used to gain access to launch facilities. An additional 16 percent of their job time is consumed in completing the neces­ sary forms and administrative procedures required in missile security operatiOJls. Typical of the specLalized tasks performed by these airmen are: 18 -----------~---------------------------------------------. maintaining classified code material used for missile entry control destroying missile entry control code materials issuing codes necessary for entry to launch facilities issuing keys necessary for entry to launch facilities making entries on AF Forms 2586 (Unescorted Entry Authorization Certificate) VII. ARMORERS (GRP339). This independent job type group was differentiated by the predominance of tasks performed involving weapons maintenance and armory functions (over 50 percent of their job time). Representing 3 percent of the survey sample (205 members), 74 percent are 811XO personnel and 26 percent report 811X2 DAFSCs. Representative tasks of the average 50 tasks performed by this group included: inventorying ammunition, weapons, or equipment issuing ammunition inspecting operational condition of weapons operating weapons facility _larm systems issuing privately owned weapons making entries on AF Forms 1314 (Firearms Registration) Although this group is clearly dominated by personnel performing weapons maintenance, storage, and control functions, a small subgroup ".4as identified which also had supervisory responsibility for the armories. VIII. AIR BASE GROUND DEFENSE (ABGD) PERSONNEL (GRP139). Although the majority of these 362 respondents reported assignments to func­ tions such as Aircraft Security Operations, Weapons Storage Site Security, Missile Security Operations, and Training, they are brought together as a group as a result of their participation in air base ground defense (ABGD) operations. Comprised predominantly of 811XO personnel (89 percent) and representing 6 percent of the total survey sample, 85 percent of the group members indicated specific assignment to an ABGD designated position (i. e. I Fire Team Member I Squad Leader, Radio Telephone Operator) and the largest single segment of their relative job time (38 percent) was devoted to tasks and duties pertaining to actual or simulated ABGD operations. Typical of these are: camouflaging equipment or positions constructing individual fighting positions employing combat challenge techniques performing land navigation using lensatic compass, protractor, and topographic map 19 ---------------------------------------------------------- Although there were identifiable subgroups of supervisors I trainers I and fire team members within this independent job type, all three were dominated by a large core of common technical ABGD tasks. Group memvers performed the highest average number of tasks (106) of any group in the career ladder sample I and as a result of the above-average task difficulty ratings for most of the ABGD tasks, the group reflects the highest Job Difficulty Index (JDI=19.02) figure of any in the survey sample. IX. ELITE GATE GUARDS (GRP399). Comprised primarily of 811X2 airmen (74 percent), this small independent job type spends over 50 percent of their relative job time performing just 8 tasks involving installation entry control. Typical tasks performed include: providing directions or information to visitors issuing visitor passes making entries on AF Forms 75 (Visitor/Vehicle Pass) directing traffic for other than convoy operations Unlike other previously discussed 811X2 career ladder groups, these airmen are not involved to any significant degree in base patrol functions. Personnel forming this group are the least experienced of all identified groups, with all of them reporting that they are still serving in their first enlistment. Their 15 months average time in career field and 18 months average time in the service are the lowest of any group in the career ladder structure sample. X. MILITARY CUSTOMS INSPECTORS (GRP694). This small group of 19 predominantly PACAF-assigned airmen (90 percent) perform a very spe­ cialized I unique job. With the majority of the group reporting DAFSC 81152 (74 percent), they devote 47 percent of their relative job time to tasks per­ taining to customs functions. An additional 13 percent of their time is spent on forms preparation and other administrative functions. Typical specialized tasks performed by these airmen are: XI. cluster percent percent clearing personnel through customs searching for contraband other than with detector dogs reviewing customs declarations preparing reports of customs violations setting up customs inspection lines for passenger or crew luggage MANAGEMENT AND STAFF PERSONNEL CLUSTER (GRPI32). This of 508 airmen represents 8 percent of the survey sample. Fifty of the group hold the 7-skill level DAFSC (31 percent 81170 and 19 81172) I with 36 percent performing at the 9-skill or CEM Code level. 20 -------------------------------------------- XVI. CRIME PREVENTION AND RESOURCE PROTECTION PERSONNEL (~HP433) . - Consisting primarily of 811X2 personnel (76 percent), these re aLlvcfy senior airmen (averaging over eight years in the career field, with an average grade of E-5) have moved from patrol-type duties to activities centering on resource protection and crime prevention (39 percent of their rela ti ve job time). Typical tasks performed include: conducting funds facility inspections conducting anti-robbery training developing and implementing crime prevention program media campaigns conducting crime prevention surveys ~ The job performed by these 65 airmen is exemplified by their involvement in police youth programs and crime prevention projects such as Neighborhood Watch, Crime Stop, and Operation Identification. XVII. CORRECTIONS OR DETENTION PERSONNEL (GRP265). This inde­ pendent job type of 79 airmen is dominated by 811X2 personnel (90 percent), yet. they perform a job almost totally divorced from the balance of the Law Enforcement career ladder sample population. These are relatively senior personnel (average grade of E-5 and an average of over 9 years in the career field) and although 48 percent report supervisory responsibilities, the day­ to-day job they perform is very technical and specific to detention facility functions. Examples of the highly specialized tasks performed by the group include: searching items brought into detention facilities by visitors supervising visiting periods of prisoners conducting prisoner roll call or head count confronting prisoner disturbances making entries on DD Forms 497 (Confinement Order) evaluating prisoner character and adjustment to correctional facility activities Performing an average of 61 tasks, 64 percent of their relative job time is encompassed in operating detention programs, along with the administrative forms preparat.ion and procedures required. XVIII. REPORTS AND ANALYSIS SPECIALISTS (GRP244). Working pri- marily in the Administration and Reports Branch of the squadron level security police organization, these 42 incumbents handle the flow of admLlis­ trative documents and reports generated by field personnel. They are responsible for reviewing documents for accuracy and format, identifying trends indicated by data gathered, and maintaining the files required to 23 preserve these data. Forms preparation and administrative tasks and func­ tions account for the largest single block of their relative job time (39 percent). The job is fairly limited in scope (an average of only 23 tasks), with 14 tasks accounting for over 50 percent of their job time. A veraging six years in their career field, 81 percent of these airmen report an 811X2 DAFSC. XIX . PASS AND REGISTRATION PERSONNEL (GRP185). This independ­ ent job type of 90 airmen is comprised of 811XO (43 percent) and 811X2 (57 percent) personnel. The majority of these group members report holding a 5-skill level DAFSC and average just over 6 years time in their career field. As was the group described above, these airmen are part of the Administra­ tion and Reports Branch; however, the job they perform is clearly different. Representative tasks which depict the character of the job for this group include: issuing vehicle decals preparing identification cards or badges fingerprinting personnel maintaining accountability records for restricted or controlled area badges or ID cards verifying vehicle registration Comparisons of Specialty Jobs Five clusters and 14 independent job types were identified in the career ladder structure analysis. Four clusters and 13 of the independent job types were involved in the performance of the various technical duties of the career ladders involved. The remaining cluster was oriented toward supervisory, managerial, and staff-type work, while the remaining individual job type was committed to training functions. The four clusters performing the technical jobs were clearly AFSC­ specific, as were eight of the independent job type groups. The remaining cluster and six independent job types contained varying degrees of combina­ tions of the ladders surveyed. Since the groups with combinations of AfSCs account for only 16 percent of the survey sample, it is clear that the vast majority of sample members are engaged in jobs keyed to specific AFSCs and, while there are some general police tasks performed in common across the career ladders, there is little significant overlap of duties and functions between 811XO and 811X2 career ladder members. Personnel holding DAFSC 81lX2A, of course, are performing many tasks in common with 811X2 career ladder personnel. Overall, the differences between the two career ladders and the A-shred groups are clear and, thus, survey data support the current career ladder structure. 24 Career ladder jobs were compared for difficulty using the Job Difficulty Index (JDI) described in the Task Factor Administration section of this report (average JDI=13. 00). Table 6 reveals that 3 of the 5 clusters and 7 of the 14 independent job types identified in the analysis reflect above average JDIs, with the more difficult job clusters being represented by the MANAGEMENT AND STAFF PERSONNEL CLUSTER (JDI=16.26) and the MILITARY WORKING DOG (MWD) HANDLER PERSONNEL CLUSTER (JDI=14.43). The most difficult independent job types included AIR BASE GROUND DEFENSE (ABGD) PERSONNEL (JDI=19. 02) "ind INFORMATION SECURITY PROGRAM PERSONNEL (JDI=17. 21). In addition to reviewing the functions of each job, it is also useful to compare the job groups in terms of background characteristics and job atti­ tudes. Table 7 presents career ladder job group data pertaining to job satisfaction indicators such as expressed job interest, sense of accomplishment gained from their work, perceived utilization of talents and training, as well as reenlistment intentions. In the majority of the groups identified, members indicate that the jobs they perform are interesting, with 15 of the 19 groups showing 60 percent of the airmen responding postively. It is noteworthy, however, that three of these groups (AIRCRAFT AND MUNITIONS SECURITY PERSONNEL, MISSILE SECURITY PERSONNEL, and ELITE GATE GUARDS--see highlighted figures in Table 7) reflect positive ratings by less than 40 percent of the group mem­ bers, and, significantly, two of those groups represent the two major clusters of 811XO personnel. Review of the composition of the jobs performed by those groups where less than 40 percent of the incumbents reported positive job interest revealed a trend of jobs which are very limited in scope and below average in difficulty (Le., AIRCRAFT AND MUNITIONS SECURITY PERSONNEL, MISSILE SECURITY PERSONNEL, and ELITE GATE GUARDS - see number of tasks performed and JDI data in Table 6). Five of the 19 groups in the career ladder structure analysis indicated they are less than satisfied (fewer than 60 percent responding positively) with the sense of accomplishment gained from their work (this number in­ cludes four of the groups discussed above - see highlighted figures in Table 7) . It is again notable that four of these five groups are comprised primarily of 811XO career ladder personnel. Perceived utilization of talents was also fairly high for the job groups overall. Four groups, however, had less than 60 percent of the members responding positively (see highlighted figures in Table 7). Most groups indicated that the jobs they performed utilized their training effectively. The only exception was the ELITE GATE GUARDS group, where less than 60 percent of the respondents felt that their training was used properly. It is interesting to note that while the two major job groups con­ taining 811XO personnel did not find their jobs particularly interesting or satisfying, or that their talents were used properly, they do perceive that they are doing what they were trained to do. 25 TABLE 6 (CONTINUED) SELECTED BACKGROUND DATA FOR CAREER LADDER CLUSTERS AND INDEPENDENT JOB TYPES CRIME INFORMATION PREVENTION/ MANAGEMENT SECURITY PLANS AND SECURITY RESOURCE CORRECTIONS REPORTS AND PASS AND AND STAFF FLIGHT TRAINING PROGRAMS PROGRAM PROTECTION OR DETENTION ANALYSIS REGISTRATION PERSONNEL CHIEFS PERSONNEL NCOs PERSONNEL PERSONNEL PERSONNEL SPECIALISTS PERSONNEL ---- NUMBER IN GROUP 508 365 157 12 78 65 79 42 90 PERCENT OF TOTAL SAMPLE 8% 6% 2% .2% 1% 1% 1% .7% 1% PERCENT IN CONUS 71% 72% 73% ],5% 69% 65% 80% 62% 63% DAFSC DISTRIBUTION: 81130 * 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 3% 81150 8% 27% 27% 17% 15% 14% 3% 17% 29% 81170 31% 66% 40% 67% 32% 8% 5% 2% 11% 81132 * 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 3% 7% 7% 81152 5% 2% 13% 0% 12% 34% 43% 48% 28% 81172 19% 4% 18% 8% 24% 42% 44% 26% 22% N 81132A 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 00 81152A * * 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 81172A * -'- * 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 81199 12% 0% 2% 8% 13% 0% 0% 0% 0% 81100 14% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% AVERAGE GRADE E-6,E-7 E-5,E-6 E-5,E-6 E-5,E-6 E-6 E-5 E-5 E-4,E-5 E-4,E-5 AVERAGE MOS IN CAREER FIELD 175 132 117 132 147 106 110 72 74 AVERAGE MOS IN SERVICE 196 141 127 135 158 115 119 77 77 PERCENT IN FIRST ENLISTMENT 3% 9% 11% 8% 5% 15% 29% 50% 45% PERCENT SUPERVISING 71% 84% 47% 33% 54% 31% 48% 43% 39% AVG NUMBER OF TASKS PERFORMED 59 66 51 47 65 53 61 23 29 JOB DIFFICULTY INDEX (JDI) 16.26 14.18 14.08 16.14 17 .21 16.04 13.05 10.46 9.56 (AVERAGE JDI = 13.00) * Less than 1 percent i L N '" TABLE 7 COMPARISONS OF JOB SATISFACTION INDICATORS BY CAREER LADDER CLUSTERS AND INDEPENDENT JOB TYPES (PERCENT tfEMBERS RESPONDING)* AIR BASE AIRCRAFT & GROUND LAW MWD KENNEL MUNITIONS MISSILE KEYS AND DEFENSE ENFORCEMENT HANDLER SUPPORT SECURITY SECURITY CODES (ABGD) PERSONNEL PERSONNEL SPECIALISTS PERSONNEL PERSONNEL CONTROLLERS ARMORERS PERSONNEL EXPRESSED JOB INTEREST: DULL 14 10 14 40 35 9 17 25 SO-SO 14 16 16 24 28 27 20 20 INTERESTING 72 73 70 ® ® 64 63 ® PERCEIVED UTILIZATION OF TALENTS: VERY LITTLE OR NOT AT ALL 26 26 32 51 50 41 29 36 FAIRLY WELL TO PERFECTLY 73 73 68 ® ® ® 71 63 PERCEIVED UTILIZATION OF TRAINING: VERY LITTLE OR NOT AT ALL 18 15 35 20 19 36 28 22 FAIRLY WELL TO PERFECTLY 81 84 68 79 80 64 72 77 SENSE OF ACCOMPLISHMENT GAINED FROM YOUR JOB: DISSATISFIED 24 25 27 41 39 23 21 30 AMBIVALENT 12 9 11 21 19 4 12 12 SATISFIED 64 65 62 ® ® 73 67 ® REENLIS1MENT INTENTIONS: NO, WILL RETIRE 3 1 3 1 2 0 2 4 NO, OR PROBABLY NO 26 26 24 34 39 32 29 19 YES, OR PROBABLY YES 70 72 73 65 58 68 69 76 * Columns may not add to 100 percent due to nonresponse or rounding ELITE HILITARY GATE CUSTmiS GUARDS INSPECTORS 47 10 16 16 ® 74 66 21 ® 79 42 21 58 79 40 16 18 0 ® 84 0 5 66 5 ® 90 I [" ! L w 0 TABLE 7 (CONTINUED) COMPARISONS OF JOB SATISFACTION INDICATORS BY CAREER LADDER CLUSTERS AND INDEPENDENT JOB TYPES (PERCENT MEMBERS RESPONDING)* CRIME INFORMATION PREVENTION/ MANAGEMENT SECURITY PLANS AND SECURITY RESOURCE CORRECTIONS REPORTS AND AND STAFF FLIGHT TRAINING PROGRAMS PROGRAM PROTECTION OR DETENTION ANALYSIS PERSONNEL CHIEFS PERSONNEL NCOs PERSONNEL PERSONNEL PERSONNEL SPECIALISTS EXPRESSED JOB INTEREST: DULL 3 24 4 8 4 2 18 0 SO-SO 7 16 8 0 4 8 19 19 INTERESTING 89 60 88 92 91 89 63 81 PERCEIVED UTILIZATION OF TALENTS: VERY LITTLE OR NOT AT ALL 7 32 6 0 9 2 30 21 FAIRLY HELL TO PERFECTLY 93 67 94 100 91 97 70 79 PERCiIVED UTILIZATION OF TRAINING: VERY LITTI£ OR NOT AT ALL 13 24 7 25 32 12 36 40 FAIRLY HELL TO PERFECTLY 86 76 93 75 68 85 63 60 SENSE OF ~ccrctPLISHMENT GAINED FROM YOUR JOB: DISSATISFIED 11 33 10 0 9 6 24 2 AMBIVALENT 4 11 4 8 5 8 13 7 SATISFIED 85 @ 86 92 86 83 63 91 REENLISTMENT INTENTIONS; NO, WILL RETIRE 20 13 ? 8 14 9 13 7 NO, OR PROBABLY NO 8 8 9 8 6 9 14 7 YES, OR PROBABLY YES 71 78 84 84 80 80 73 86 * Columns may not add to 100 percent due to nonresponse or rounding PASS AND REGISTRATION PERSONNEL 7 12 81 19 81 40 60 10 12 77 0 21 79 TABLE 8 NUMERICAL DISTRIBUTION OF 811XO DAFSC GROUP MEMBERS ACROSS CAREER LADDER JOBS CAREER LADDER JOB GROUPS LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL CLUSTER (N=l, 167) MILITARY WORKING DOG (MWD) HANDLER PERSONNEL CLUSTER (N=350) KENNEL SUPPORT SPECIALISTS (N=37) AIRCRAFT AND MUNITIONS SECURITY PERSONNEL CLUSTER (N=1,602) MISSILE SECURITY PERSONNEL CLUSTER (N=403) KEYS AND CODES CONTROLLERS (N=22) ARMORERS (N=205) AIR BASE GROUND DEFENSE (ABGD) PERSONNEL (N=362) ELITE GATE GUARDS (N=38) MILITARY CUSTOMS INSPECTORS (N=19) MANAGEMENT AND STAFF PERSONNEL CLUSTER (N=508) SECURITY FLIGHT CHIEFS (N=365) TRAINING PERSONNEL (N=157) PLANS AND PROGRAMS NCOs (N=12) INFORMATION SECURITY PROGRAM PERSONNEL (N=78) CRIME PREVENTION AND RESOURCE PROTECTION PERSONNEL (N=65) CORRECTIONS OR DETENTION PERSONNEL (N=79) REPORTS MiD ANALYSIS SPECIALISTS (N=42) PASS AND REGISTRATION PERSONNEL (N=90) NOT GROUPED 33 DAFSC 81130/ 81150 (N=3,007) 92 1 1 1,464 368 21 127 228 8 1 43 98 42 2 13 10 2 7 29 450 DAFSC 81170 (N=948) 16 2 o 123 35 1 24 89 o o 159 239 62 8 25 5 4 1 10 145 DAFSC 81199/ CEM CODE (N=231) 1 o o o o o 1 7 o o 182 o 4 1 12 o o o o 23 r- TABLE 9 AVERAGE PERCENT TIME SPENT PERFORMING DUTIES BY 811XO DAFSC GROUPS DAFSC DAFSC 81130/ DAFSC 81199/ 81150 81170 CEM CODE DUTIES (N=3,00n (N=948) (N=231) A PLANNING AND ORGANIZING 3 12 26 B DIRECTING AND IMPLEMENTING 3 13 24 C INSPECTING AND EVALUATING 2 13 29 D TRAINING 4 12 4 E PERFORMING FORMS PREPARATION AND ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS 8 8 4 F PERFORMING GENERAL SECURITY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT (LE) DUTIES 39 20 4 G PERFORMING LAW ENFORCEMENT OPERATIONS FUNCTIONS .. " "k '"'k H PERFORMING INFORMATION SECURITY AND CRIME PREVENTION/ RESOURCE PROTECTION FUNCTIONS 1 2 3 I MAINTAINING MISSILE SYSTEMS SECURITY 5 2 i'( J MAINTAINING BASE, WEAPONS STORAGE y OR AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS SECURITY 8 3 "k K PARTICIPATING IN DISASTER CONTROL 1 2 ;1( L OPERATING DETENTION PROGRAMS ··k 'Ok "k M PERFORMING CUSTOMS FUNCTIONS jt( .'" ok " N HANDLING MILITARY WORKING DOGS (MWD) -k .. ,t; it.: 0 PERFORMING INDIVIDUAL WEAPONS MAINTENANCE OR ARMORY FUNCTIONS 15 6 1 P PERFORMING ACTUAL OR SIMULATED EMERGENCY SERVICE TEAM (EST) OPERATIONS .... .. )( "k " Q PERFORMING ACTUAL OR SIMULATED AIR BASE GROUND DEFENSE (ABGD) OPERATIONS 8 6 2 * Less than 1 percent 34 TABLE 10 DISPLAY OF REPRESENTATIVE TASKS FOR 811XO DAFSC GROUPS AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE GROUPS (PERCENT MEMBERS RESPONDING) 81130/50 81170 81199/8ll00 TASKS (N=3 ,007) (N=948) (N=231) F313 STAND GUARDMOUNT 76 42 3 F261 DEPLOY IN RESPONSE TO DURESS OR ALARM ACTIVATIONS 66 41 2 F299 PERFORM SENTRY DUTY IN RESTRICTED OR CONTROLLED AREAS 58 17 2 0554 LUBRICATE WEAPON MECHANISMS OR PARTS 57 38 16 F255 CONDUCT WALL SEARCHES OF SUSPECTS OTHER THAN WITH DETECTOR DOGS -S5 29 2 F301 PERFORM TACTICAL DEPLOYMENT FROM STANDARD VEHICLES 54 30 2 F235 APPREHEND INTRUDERS OR SUSPECTS 54 37 6 F262 DEPLOY IN RESPONSE TO SECURITY REPORTING AND ALERTING ORDERS 50 42 7 _,.., .J... ....t... _'... _'.. ..t.. ~_ ... t... ... toO _,_ •• J.. _to. J.. ...'_ J.... -t... _'... _t... _,_ _t... oJ.. ..J- _'... ...'.. _t... _'- _t.. _t.. ""- .J... _t- ..I_ n n n n n n n ft ft ft ft ft n ft ft ft ft n n ft ft ft n ft n n ft n n ft ft ft w C123 PREPARE AIRMAN PERFORMANCE REPORTS 23 70 73 VI B84 SUPERVISE SECURITY SPECIALISTS (AFSC 81150) 22 59 21 D142 COUNSEL TRAINEES ON TRAINING PROGRESS 25 56 23 D136 CONDUCT ON-THE-JOB TRAINING (OJT) 32 56 15 0542 ASSEMBLE OR DISASSEMBI:t: M-16 RIFLES 78 56 29 F281 INSPECT INDIVIDUAL EQUIPMENT FOR SERVICEABILITY 42 52 30 F246 CONDUCT INSPECTIONS OF ASSIGNED POSTS·' 25 50 40 F245 CONDUCT GUARDMOUNT 25 38 4 * ",/, * * * * * * * "k -k * * * * * * * "", * * * j~ * * * i'; * -/; * ;~ ;~ B73 REVIEW ADMINISTRATIVE CORRESPONDENCE OR REPORTS 6 39 183 A20 ESTABLISH ORGANIZATIONAL POLICIES, OFFICE INSTRUCTIONS (01), OR STANDING OPERATING PROCEDURES (SOP) 4 28 81 C87 ANALYZE INSPECTION REPORTS 5 35 81 C90 CONDUCT POST CHECKS 13 59 79 Al ADVISE STAFF PERSONNEL ON TRAINING MATTERS 10 42 73 C123 PREPARE AIRMAN PERFORMANCE REPORTS 23 70 73 C129 WRITE STAFF STUDIES, SURVEYS, OR SPECIAL REPORTS 2 15 71 B37 CONDUCT STAFF MEETINGS 2 11 59 TABLE 11 RELATIVE TIME SPENT ON DUTIES BY 811XO TAFMS GROUPS MONTHS TAFMS 1-48 49-96 97-144 145-192 193-240 241+ DUTIES (N=2,244) (N=697) (N=456) (N=368) (N=136) (N=131) A PLA1~ING AND ORGANIZING 2 5 9 13 14 21 B DIRECTING AND IMPLEMENTING 2 7 10 13 16 20 C INSPECTING AND EVALUATING 1 6 10 13 17 28 D TRAINING 2 10 12 12 10 7 E PERFORMING FORMS PREPARATION AND ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS 7 9 9 8 8 5 F PERFORMING GENERAL SECURITY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT (LE) DUTIES 42 31 24 20 17 9 G PERFORMING LAW ENFORCEMENT OPERATIONS FUNCTIONS * * * * 7\ "'x H PERFOR.l1ING INFORMATION SECURITY AND CRIME PREVENTION/ RESOURCE PROTECTION FUNCTIONS 1 2 2 2 2 2 I MAINTAINING MISSILE SYSTEMS SECURITY 6 3 3 3 2 * ~ J MAINTAINING BASE, WEAPONS STORAGE, OR AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS SECURITY 8 6 4 3 2 * K PARTICIPATING IN DISASTER CONTROL 1 2 2 2 2 1 L OPERATING DETENTION PROGRAMS * -k "k * -k * M PERFORMING CUSTOMS FUNCTIONS ~k i~ -k * -k * N HANDLING MILITARY WORKING DOGS (MWD) * "k * * * * 0 PERFORMING INDIVIDUAL WEAPONS MAINTENANCE OR ARMORY FUNCTIONS 17 10 7 6 4 2 P PERFORMING ACTUAL OR SIMULATED EMERGENCY SERVICE TEAM (EST) OPERATIONS ok * 'Ok i~ * -I: Q PERFORl1ING ACTUAL OR SIMULATED AIR BASE GROUND DEFENSE (ABGD) OPERATIONS 8 8 6 5 6 " .J * Less than 1 percent w \.0 TABLE 12 COMPARISON OF JOB SATISFACTION INDICATORS BY 8I1XO TAFMS GROUPS (PERCENT MEMBERS RESPONDING)* 1-48 MONTHS TAFMS 49-96 MONTHS TAFMS 97+ HONTHS TAFMS COMPAR~TIVE COMPARATIVE COMPARATIVE 811XO SAMPLE-1,...,,<" 8llXO SAMPLE-;'& 81lXO SAMPLE-1,.-;;- (N=2!244) (N=I,076) (N=697) (N=586) (N=1,091) (N=877) EXPRESSED JOB INTEREST: DULL 37 9 30 8 17 7 SO-SO 24 11 20 l3 l3 12 INTERESTING ® 79 ® 76 96 78 PERCEIVED UTILIZATION OF TALENTS: LITTLE OR NOT AT ALL 49 18 40 17 22 16 FAIRLY WELL TO PERFECTLY ® 82 ® 83 77 83 PERCEIVED UTILIZATION OF TRAINING: LITTLE OR NOT AT ALL 21 21 25 23 19 22 FAIRLY WELL TO PERFECTLY 78 79 74 76 80 77 REENLISTMENT INTENTIONS: NO, OR PROBABLY NO 38 41 22 24 6 7 YES, OR PROBABLY YES 60 57 76 74 79 77 * Columns may not add to 100 percent due to nonresponses and rounding ** Comparative sample of direct support career ladders surveyed in 1983 (includes AFSCs 12IXO, 122XO 222XO, 232XO, 472X4, 545XO, and 553XO) 811XO TRAINING ANALYSIS Occupational survey data are one of the many sources of information which can be used to assist in the development of a training program relevant to the needs of personnel working in their first assignment within a career ladder. Factors which may be used in evaluating training include: (1) The overall description of the job being performed by first-enlistment personnel and their overall distribution across specialty jobs; (2) Percentages of first­ job (1-24 months TAFMS) or first-enlistrnent (1-48 months TAFMS) membp.rs performing specific tasks or using certain equipment or procedures; and (3) Training emphasis and task difficulty ratings (previously explained in the SURVEY METHODOLOGY section). To assist specifically in the evaluation of the 811XO Specialty Training Standard (STS) and Plan of Instruction (POI), technical school personnel from the USAF Security Police Academy, Lackland Air Force Base, Texas, matched job inventory tasks to appropriate sections and subsections of the STS and POI for Course 3ABR81130-002, Security Specialist. It was this task matching upon which comparison to those documents was based. A complete computer listing displaying the percent members performing tasks, training emphasis ratings for each task and certain background items, task difficulty ratings for each task, along with STS and POI matchings, has been forw3.rded to the technical school for their use in further detailed reviews of training documents. Summaries of the above-mentioned data and information are given below. First-Enlistment Personnel First-enlistment personnel (1-48 months TAFMS) spent the majority of their job time performing tasks in support of maintaining security for weapons storage facilities, aircraft, and missile systems (see Table 13 for a display of representative tasks). They also 3pent a substantial amount of their relative duty time (17 percent) performing individual weapons maintenance or armory function tasks, such as assembling or disassembling M-16 rifles, lubricating weapon mechanisms or parts, and performing weapons functional checks. Distribution of first-term personnel across career ladder jobs is displayed in Figure 2, reflecting the fact that most 811XO first-enlistment airmen are involved in jobs associated with aircraft, munitions, and missile security functions. Training Emphasis Table 14 lists the top 20 tasks which the previously discussed training emphasis (TE) raters (see SURVEY METHODOLOGY section) indicated were the most important for first-enlistment training (as indicated by TE rating). These tasks are displayed as examples to illustrate the various types of data (percent performing, task difficulty, and training emphasis) which can be used to evaluate training documents. Even though the tasks in Table 14 are 40 ~---------------------------------------------------------------------------- representative of the body of tasks matched to these units and all have less than 30 percent of the 811XO first-term sample population performing them. It should also be noted that none of these tasks have high TE ratings (3.56 or above) and all reflect below average (5.00) TD ratings. Since these tasks are performed primarily in functions peculiar to the mission of SAC, it would appear to be more appropriate to shift this missile-oriented training from the general ABR course (where the entire 811XO trainee population receives this 11 + hours of instruction) to a follow-on trailer course at the technical training center for SAC destined personnel or, possibly, FTD courses at appropriate sites around the country. Training personnel, career ladder functional managers I and AFMPC assignments personnel should review these data and the current training philosophy in greater detail in an effort to determine the most efficient and cost-effective method to accomplish the necessary missile­ oriented training. 43 TABLE 13 REPRESENTATIVE TASKS PERFORMED BY 811XO FIRST-ENLISTMENT PERSONNEL TASKS 0542 ASSEMBLE OR DISASSEMBLE M-16 RIFLES F313 STAND GUARD~1OUNT F278 FIRE WEAPONS TO MAINTAIN QUALIFICATION 0546 CLEAN WEAPON MECHANISMS OR PARTS F261 DEPLOY IN RESPONSE TO DURESS OR ALARM ACTIVATIONS F299 PERFORM SENTRY DUTY IN RESTRICTED OR CONTROLLED AREAS 0554 LUBRICATE WEAPON MECHANISMS OR PARTS F255 CONDUCT WALL SEARCHES OF SUSPECTS OTHER THAN WITH DETECTOR DOGS F301 PERFORM TACTICAL DEPLOYMENT FROM STANDARD VEHICLES 0560 PERFORM WEAPONS FUNCTIONAL CHECKS F235 APPREHEND INTRUDERS OR SUSPECTS F262 DEPLOY IN RESPONSE TO SECURITY REPORTING AND ALERTING ORDERS F237 BRIEF POST RELIEF 0544 ASSEMBLE OR DISASSEMBLE M-60 ~~CHINE GUNS F292 OPERATE VEHICLE RADIO OR PUBLIC ADDRESS SYSTEMS F300 PERFORM TACTICAL DEPLOYMENT FROM HARDENED VEHICLES F248 CONDUCT KNEELING SEARCH OF SUSPECTS OTHER THAN WITH DETECTOR DOGS J413 PERFORM AS CLOSE BOUNDARY GUARD F254 CONDUCT SEARCHES OF VEHICLES OTHER THAN WITH DETECTOR DOGS F298 PERFORM OPERATOR MAINTENANCE ON SECURITY POLICE VEHICLES 0548 INSPECT OPERATIONAL CONDITION OF WEAPONS F240 CONDUCT BUILDING SECURITY CHECKS J414 PERFORM AS CLOSE-IN SENTRY F297 PERFORM ON-BASE MOBILE PATROLS, OTHER THAN WITH PATROL DOGS 0539 APPLY PRESERVATIVES TO WEAPONS Average number of tasks performed - 50 44 PERCENT MEMBERS PERFORMING (N=2,2~~ 81 79 77 73 69 65 60 58 57 57 55 48 47 47 44 43 43 43 42 40 ------- - FIGURE 2 DISTRIBUTION OF 811XO FIRST-ENLISTMENT PERSONNEL ACROSS SPECIALTY JOBS PATROL~1EN AND INSTALLATION ENTRY CONTROLLERS 1% --- PASS AND REGISTRATION PERSONNEL 1% (N=2,244) SECURITY FLIGHT CHIEFS 1% 7% ;' .. ;' .. .. .. .. .. , .. .. .. ~\ ~~ .. .. MISS ILE ~ c{b RESPONSE FORCE ~ ~ PERSONNEL ~.~ 8% <$. SECURITY ESCORT [=-...... ~~~j~~~;;;;:~lTEAM (SET) MEMBERS AREA 4% SENTRIES -~ ......... 8% AREA SUPERVISORS AND RESPONSE FORCE LEADERS 3% AREA SENTRIES AND RESPONSE FORCE TEAM MEMBERS 30% 3% AIRCRAFT AND MUNITIONS ~ SECURITY PERSONNEl CLUSTER 45 FLIGHT SECURITY CONTROLLERS 1% --------_._--------------------------- TABLE 16 SELECTED TASKS PERFORMED AND NOT REFERENCED TO 811XO STS (10 PERCENT OR MORE PERFORMING) PERCENT MEMBERS PERFORMING TNG 1ST 1ST 5-SKILL 7-SKILL TASK TASKS EMPH* JOB ENL LEVEL LEVEL DIFF -- 0561 RECEIVE AND SECURE AMMUNITION, WEAPONS, OR EQUIPMENT 3.85 34 32 30 21 3.68 E173 MAKE ENTRIES ON AF FORMS 1297 (TEMPORARY ISSUE RECEIPT) 3.83 18 23 29 37 2.43 F296 PERFORM ON-BASE FOOT PATROLS, OTHER THAN WITH PATROL DOGS 3.59 36 30 22 6 3.60 F259 CONTROL SPECTATORS AT SPECIAL EVENTS 3.33 16 17 18 20 3.84 E198 MAKE ENTRIES ON AF FORMS 629 (SMALL ARMS HAND RECEIPT) 3.29 17 19 21 23 2.51 F264 DIRECT TRAFFIC FOR OTHER THAN CONVOY OPERATIONS 3.23 12 11 10 9 3.74 F258 CONTROL PARKING IN DESIGNATED AREAS 3.00 10 11 12 12 3.29 0563 SECURE WEAPON FACILITIES 2.93 11 12 11 7 3.23 F239 CLOSE INSTALLATION ENTRY CONTROL POINTS 2.77 12 12 10 4 3.01 0549 INVENTORY AMMUNITION, WEAPONS, OR EQUIPMENT 2.62 12 14 15 14 4.23 0562 RECHARGE PORTABLE COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT BATTERIES 2.32 16 18 17 10 2.99 ~ 0550 ISSUE AMMUNITION 2.10 8 10 10 7 3.34 * Task training emphasis rating of 1.86 is average Task training emphasis rating of 3.56 or above is high .j::-- \.0 TABLE 17 POI BLOCKS REFLECTING LOW 811XO FIRST ENLISTMENT TASK PERFORrUlliCE (LESS THAN 30 PERCENT RESPONDING) POI REFERENCE BLOCK-UNIT TIME SELECTED SAMPLE TASKS II-45 MISSILE SYS SECURITY C!.'~~3 (MINUTEMAN) (7: 15) 1393 MAINTAIN CLASSIFIED CODE MATERIAL USED FOR MISSILE ENTRY CONTROL I394 MAINTAIN TOPSIDE SECURITY OF MATING AND DEMATING PROCEDURES AT MISSILE SITES I391 ISSUE CODES 1~CESSARY FOR ENTRY TO LAUNCH FACILITIES 1381 AUTHENTICATE IDENTITY USING CODE MATERIAL WHEN ENTERING LAUNCH FACILITY I384 CONTROL ENTRY TO LAUNCH CONTROL FACILITY 1386 ESCORT MAINTENANCE TEAMS TO MISSILE LAUNCH FACILITIES * 'i~ i~ * * * ";~ * * * * * * * * * II-46 MISSILE SYS SECURITY OPNS (TITAN) (4:36) I396 OPERATE MISSILE FACILITY SECURITY COMMUNI- CATIONS EQUIPMENT I397 PLOT REENTRY VEHICLE OR MISSILE CONVOY MOVEMENTS 1385 DESTROY MISSILE ENTRY CONTROL CODE MATERIALS 1383 CONDUCT METAL DETECTION SEARCHES OF VISITORS TO MISSILE FACILITIES 1390 INSPECT PHYSICAL CONDITION, SECURITY, AND ACCESS TO MISSILE SITES * Task training emphasis rating of 3.56 or above is high ~~ Task difficulty rating of 5.00 is average TNG TASK EMPH* DIFF"',,'\- -- 2.33 4.50 2.61 4.40 1.61 4.46 2.77 3.75 3.15 4.07 2.33 3.91 * * * 2.83 3.85 1.30 4.41 3.10 3.78 2.90 3.15 2.46 4.56 PERCENT MEMBERS PERFORMING FIRST FIRST JOB ENL (N=I,186) (N=2,244) 11 11 10 9 3 4 21 18 5 7 12 9 * * * * * 13 12 2 2 19 17 9 9 15 12 811XO MAJCOM COMPARISONS Tasks performed and background data for personnel of the eight major commands (MAJCOM) with the largest 811XO populations were compared to determine whether job content varied as a function of MAJCOM assignment. Generally I the jobs performed across the commands were similar I with the largest percentage of duty time in each command committed to the per­ formance of tasks involving general security functions, forms preparation and administrative activities I and individual weapons maintenan.ce or armory func­ tions (see Table 18). Some minor variances were noted I with AFLC and ESC personnel reporting they spent slightly more job time on tasks involving forms preparation and administration. Additionally I ESC airmen also indicated greater involvement with information security I crime prevention I and resource protection functions. SAC personnel responses were notable in that they were the only airmen indicating a significant amount of time spent on tasks pertaining to missile systems security operations. This situation was previously noted in the discussion of the POI in the 811XO TRAINING ANALYSIS section. Summary Many of the tasks pertaining to the major functions of the career ladder are performed commonly across the using major commands. Only SAC stands out as clearly distinct, due primarily to its members' concentration of time on tasks pertaining to missile systems security. 50 administrative and training tasks. Group personnel performed an average of 81 tasks, and even though these NCOs are clearly supervisory and training oriented (see representative tasks in Table 21), many of them are still in­ volved to some degree i.n technical law enforcement activities. The low percentage of airmen performing common tasks (only 14 tasks were performed by 50 percent or more) suggests some diversity in the career ladder. The range of the job is indicated by the fact that, although 75 percent reported they supervise other personnel, 41 percent responded to a task pertaining to the apprehension of intruders or suspects. DAFSC 81199 and CEM Code 81100. This group was discussed in Section II, along with the 811XO DAFSC groups. Please refer to that discussion for information about this duty group. Table 21 displays representative tasks performed and also indicates the staff orientation of these senior NCOs. Summary Career ladder progression is well defined, with personnel at the 3-/5- skill level spending the large majority of their job time performing technical law enforcement tasks, while at the 7-skill level, supervisory, training, and administrative functions become the more dominant features of the job. Low numbers of tasks performed by 50 percent or more of the skill-level groups suggest a somewhat diverse career ladder, particularly at the 7-skill level. Nine-skill and CEM Code level personnel performed a predominantly staff­ oriented job, with very little activity involving technical law enforcement task performance. 53 TABLE 19 NUMERICAL DISTRIBUTION OF 811X2 DAFSC GROUP MEMBERS ACROSS CAREER LADDER JOBS CAREER LADDER JOB GROUPS LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL CLUSTER (N=I,167) MILITARY WORKING DOG (MWD) HANDLER PERSONNEL CLUSTER (N=350) KENNEL SUPPORT SPECIALISTS (N=37) AIRCRAFT AND MUNITIONS SECURITY PERSONNEL CLUSTER (N=I,602) MISSILE SECURITY PERSONNEL CLUSTER (N=403) KEYS AND CODES CONTROLLERS (N=22) ARMORERS (N=205) AIR BASE GROUND DEFENSE (ABGD) PERSONNEL (N=362) ELITE GATE GUARDS (N=38) MILITARY CUSTOMS INSPECTORS (N=19) MANAGEMENT AND STAFF PERSONNEL CLUSTER (N=508) SECURITY FLIGHT CHIEFS (N=365) TRAINING PERSONNEL (N=157) PLANS AND PROGRAMS NCOs (N=12) INFORMATION SECURITY PROGRAM PERSONNEL (N=78) CRIME PREVENTION AND RESOURCE PROTECTION PERSONNEL (N=65) CORRECTIONS OR DETENTION PERSONNEL (N=79) REPORTS AND ANALYSIS SPECIALISTS (N=42) PASS AND REGISTRATION PERSONNEL (N=90) NOT GROUPED 54 DAFSC 81132/ 81152 (N=I,251) 814 15 2 14 o o 50 26 28 15 25 9 20 o 9 23 36 23 31 111 + DAFSC 81172 (N=543) 228 o o o o o 3 11 o 2 95 14 28 1 19 27 35 11 20 49 DAFSC 81199/ CEM CODE (N=231) o o o o o 1 7 o o 182 o 4 12 o o o o 23 TABLE 20 AVERAGE PERCENT TIME SPENT PERFORMING DUTIES BY 811X2 DAFSC GROUPS DAFSC DAFSC 81132/ DAFSC 81199/ 81152 81172 CEM CODE DUTIES (N=I,251) (N=543) (N=231) ------- A PLANNING AND ORGANIZING 3 12 26 B DIRECTING AND IMPLEMENTING 4 12 24 C INSPECTING AND EVALUATING 2 12 29 D TRAINING 3 9 4 E PERFORMING FORMS PREPARATION AND ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS 22 15 4 F PERFORMING GENERAL SECURITY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT (LE) DUTIES 42 21 4 G PERFORMING LAW ENFORCEMENT OPERATIONS FUNCTIONS 3 2 * H PERFORMING INFORMATION SECURITY AND CRIME PREVENTION/ RESOURCE PROTECTION FUNCTIONS 2 5 3 I MAINTAINING MISSILE SYSTEMS SECURITY * "i'\ , • .,t( J MAINTAINING BASE, WEAPONS STORAGE, OR AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS SECURITY . '. .... * " " K PARTICIPATING IN DISASTER CONTROL 1 1 i'( L OPERATING DETENTION PROGRAMS 2 3 i'< M PERFORMING CUSTOMS FUNCTIONS 1 1 'i~ N HANDLING MILITARY WORKING DOGS (MWD) "'/( oJ. i'\ " 0 PERFORMING INDIVIDUAL \VEAPONS MAINTENANCE OR ARMORY FUNCTIONS 8 3 1 P PERFORMING ACTUAL OR SIMULATED EMERGENCY SERVICE TEp~ (EST) OPERATIONS * -k ;'\ Q PERFORMING ACTUAL OR SIMULATED AIR BASE GROUND DEFENSE (ABGD) OPERATIONS 4 3 2 * Less than 1 percent 55 ANAL YSIS OF 811X2 TAFMS GROUPS Utilization patterns for 811X2 respondents in different Total Active Federal Military Service (TAFMS) groups were reviewed to determine if there were differences in tasks performed. Following a pattern very similar to that described for 8I1Xa personnel, performance of duties involving supervisory, managerial, and training tasks generally increased for 811X2 airmen as time in the service increased. Performance time on tasks in the technical law enforcement and other police-type duties generally declined as these personnel gained time in the service (see Table 22). Through the third enlistment (97-144 months), the job remained primarily technical, with only 35 percent of the group's relative job time spent on supervisory, managerial, and training duties. During the fourth enlistment (145-192 months), supervisory and managerial functions accounted for a majority of these respondents' relative job time. A more in-depth, detailed evaluation of the first-enlistment group will be presented in the 811X2 TRAINING ANALYSIS section of this report. Comparisons of group perceptions of their jobs helps career field mana­ gers understand some of the factors which may affect the job performance of today's airmen. These perceptions are captured by including four job satis­ faction questions in the survey instrument covering job interest, perceived utilization of talents and training, and reenlistment intentions. Table 23 presents data displaying the responses of selected T AFMS groups. Com­ parisons were also made between comparative samples of other Direct Support career ladders surveyed in 1983. While expressed job interest and perceived use of talents indicators for 811X2 first-enlistment airmen are reasonably high, they are somewhat lower than those of the comparative sample group. Other job satisfaction indicators are relatively equ.al across corresponding time groups and the high percent­ ages of positive responses reflect that 811X2 personnel are pretty well satisfied with their j'obs. It is interesting to note that the high positive job satisfaction indications for expressed job interest and talent utilization for 811X2 first- and second-enlistment airmen contrasts rather sharply with those for the same 811Xa groups (refer back to Table 12). 58 ~ TABLE 22 RELATIVE TIME SPENT ON DUTIES BY 811X2 TAFMS GROUPS MONTHS TAFMS 1-48 49-96 97-144 145-192 193-240 241+ DUTIES (N=831) (N=337) (N=241) (N=227) (N=107) (N=48) A PLANNING AN~ ORGANIZING 1 5 9 12 15 15 B DIRECTING AND IMPLEMENTING 2 6 10 13 14 17 C INSPECTING AND EVALUATING 1 5 8 13 15 17 D TRAINING * 8 8 8 9 7 E PERFORMING FORMS PREPARATION AND ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS 23 21 18 15 12 11 F PERFORMING GENERAL SECURITY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT (LE) DUTIES 47 33 26 21 16 14 G PERFORMING LAW ENFORCEMENT OPERATIONS FUNCTIONS 3 3 2 2 2 1 H PERFORMING INFORMATION SECURITY AND CRIME PREVENTION/RESOURCE PROTECTION FUNCTIONS 1 3 4 5 4 6 I MAINTAINING MISSILE SYSTEMS SECURITY * -'- * -'- * * Ln .. .- \0 J MAINTAINING BASE, WEAPONS STORAGE, OR AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS SECURITY 1 * * ·k * * K PARTICIPATING IN DISASTER CONTROL 1 1 1 2 2 1 L OPERATING DETENTION PROGRAMS 2 2 4 2 4 5 M PERFORMING CUSTOMS FUNCTIONS * 1 2 1 1 * N HANDLING MILITARY WORKING DOGS (MWD) * * i; * * * 0 PERFORMING INDIVIDUAL WEAPONS MAINTENANCE OR ARMORY FUNCTIONS 9 5 4 3 2 2 P PERFORMING ACTUAL OR SIMULATED EMERGENCY SERVICE TEAM (EST) OPERATIONS 1 i; ;', * "k * Q PERFORMING ACTUAL OR SIMULATED AIR BASE GROUND DEFENSE (ABGD) OPERATIONS 5 3 3 3 3 2 * Less than 1 percent 0'\ 0 TABLE 23 COMPARISON OF JOB SATISFACTION INDICATORS BY 811X2 TAFMS GROUPS (PERCENT MEMBERS RESPONDING)* 1-48 MONTHS TAFMS 49-96 MONTHS TAFMS 97+ MONTHS TAFMS COMPARATIVE COMPARATIVE COMPARATIVE 811X2 SAMPLE*"~ 811X2 SAMPLE";;'~ 811X2 SAMPLE"',* (N=831) (N=I,076) (N=337) (N=586) (N=623) (N=877) EXPRESSED JOB INTEREST: DULL 16 9 11 8 8 7 SO-SO 18 11 13 13 9 J2 INTERESTING 65 79 75 76 82 78 PERCEIVED UTILIZATION OF TALENTS: LITTLE OR NOT AT ALL 32 18 21 17 17 16 FAIRLY WELL TO PERFECTLY 67 82 78 83 82 83 PERCEIVED UTILIZATION OF TRAINING: LITTLE OR NOT AT ALL 22 21 21 23 21 22 FAIRLY WELL TO PERFECTLY 77 79 78 76 78 77 REENLISTMENT INTENTIONS: NO, OR PROBABLY NO 36 41 19 24 7 7 YES, OR PROBABLY YES 62 57 79 74 80 77 * Columns may not add to 100 percent due to nonresponse and rounding ~-~ Comparative sample of Direct Support career ladders surveyed in 1983 (includes AFSCs 121XO, 122XO, 222XO, 232XO, 472X4, 545XO, and 553XO) ~----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Although no data are included in Table 26" paragraph 16, DETENTION PROGRAM OPERATION/ACTIVITIES, should also be reviewed. While retention of the STS element is supported by survey data (a definitive job group was id<mtificd), lraining personnel and subject-matter specialists should evaluate the extensive amount and detail of coverage. Tasks not matched to any element of the STS are listed at the end of the STS computer format (see TRAINING EXTRACT, the reduced computer products included with this report). These tasks were reviewed to determine if there were any tasks concentrated around any particular functions or jobs. A review of Table 27 reveals a number of tasks selected for display which pertain to armory operations. Since a specific armory job was identified in the SPECIALTY JOB S analysis, the percentages of personnel performing the tasks and the average to high TE ratings for many of the tasks indicates that armory operations should be added in the next update to the 811X2 STS. 811X2 Plan Of Instruction (POI) Based on the previously mentioned assistance from technical school subject-matter specialists in matching inventory tasks to the 3ABR81132-001 POI, dated 21 December 1983, a complete product was generated displaying the results of the matching process. Information furnished for consideration includes training emphasis (TE) and task difficulty (TD) ratings, as well as percent members performing data for first-job (1-24 months TAFMS) and first-enlistment (1-48 months TAFMS) personnel. Most POI blocks and units of instruction are well supported by survey data (based on percentages of first-term personnel performing tasks or high TE or TD ratings fo:: pertinent tasks) or are justified because tasks ar.e being trained to meet contingency-type requirements. There are, however, two units of instruction in Block II that are not supported (see Table 28). No tasks were matched to Unit 50, and a review of tasks from the job inven­ tory which pertained to crime prevention programs reflected that all had 10 percent or less of the first-term airmen performing. In Unit 55, all tasks matched have less than 30 percent of the 811X2 first-term sample population performing them and, further, none of the tasks has a high TE rating (3.80 or above) and all but one reflect below average (5.00) TD ratings. Limited participation by first-term 811X2 personnel in the functions covered by these two units of instruction is also evident in Figure 3, with only 1 percent of the first-enlistment group represented in the CRIME PREVENTION AND RESOURCE PROTECTION job type and only 2 percent in the CORRECTIONS OR DETENTION PERSONNEL job type. 63 TABLE 24 REPRESENTATIVE TASKS PERFORMED BY 811X2 FIRST-ENLISTMENT PERSONNEL PERCENT MEMBERS PERFORMING TASKS (N=831) E195 MAKE ENTRIES ON AF FORMS 52 (EVIDENCE TAG) 79 E171 MAKE ENTRIES ON AF FORMS 1169/1170 (STATEMENT OF WITNESS) 77 E170 MAKE ENTRIES ON AF FORMS 1168/1170 (STATEMENT OF SUSPECT) 75 E208 MAKE ENTRIES ON DD FORMS 1408 (ARMED FORCES TRAFFIC TICKET) 72 F313 STAND GUARDMOUNT 71 F305 PREPARE AND ISSUE TRAFFIC TICKETS OR VIOLATION NOTICES 68 F240 CONDUCT BUILDING SECURITY CHECKS 66 F283 ISSUE VISITOR PASSES 65 E199 MAKE ENTRIES ON AF FORMS 75 (VISITOR/VEHICLE PASS) 64 F308 PROVIDE DIRECTIONS OR INFORMATION TO VISITORS 63 F292 OPERATE VEHICLE RADIO OR PUBLIC ADDRESS SYSTEMS 62 F261 DEPLOY IN RESPONSE TO DURESS OR ALARM ACTIVATIONS 61 F297 PERFORM ON-BASE MOBILE PATROLS, OTHER THAN WITH PATROL DOGS 60 0542 ASSEMBLE OR DISASSEMBLE M-16 RIFLES 59 F257 CONFRONT ON-BASE DISTURBANCES 58 F282 INTERVIEW SUSPECTS, WITNESSES, OR COMPLAINANTS 58 F234 ADVISE INDIVIDUALS OF THEIR RIGHTS UNDER THE FIFTH AMEND- MENT (SELF INCRIMINATION) OR UNDER ARTICLE 31, UCMJ 58 F235 APPREHEND INTRUDERS OR SUSPECTS 57 F232 ADMINISTER FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS 57 0546 CLEAN WEAPON MECHANISMS OR PARTS 56 E183 MAKE ENTRIES ON AF FORMS 1668 (FIELD INTERVIEW) 55 E209 MAKE ENTRIES ON DD FORMS 1569 (INCIDENT/COMPLAINT REPORT) 55 F255 CONDUCT WALL SEARCHES OF SUSPECTS OTHER THAN WITH DETECTOR DOGS 53 F296 PERFORM ON-BASE FOOT PATROLS, OTHER T~i WITH PATROL DOGS 52 F264 DIRECT TRAFFIC FOR OTHER THAN CONVOY OPERATIONS 50 Average number of tasks performed ~. 59 64 ----------------------- ----------- FIGURE 3 DISTRIBUTION OF 811X2 FIRST-ENLISTMENT PERSONNEL ACROSS SPECIALTY JOBS ( N=83l) B __ ..... LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL CLUSTER A - PATROLMEN AND INSTALLATION ENTRY CONTROLLERS 50% B - LAW ENFORCEMENT FLIGHT CHIEFS 4% C - DESK SERGEANTS 3% D - INTERMEDIATE HEADQUARTERS EL ITE GUARDS 2% E - INVESTIGATORS 2% A F - MILITARY CUSTOMS INSPECTORS 1% G - ARMORERS 3% H - ABGD PERSONNEL 2% I - ELITE GATE GUARDS 3% J - PASS AND REGISTRATION PERSONNEL 3% K - CORRECTIONS OR DETENTION PERSONNEL 2% 65 OTHER JOBS L - REPORTS AND ANALYSIS SPECIALISTS 2% M - CRIME PREVENTION AND RESOURCE PRO­ TECTION PERSONNEL 1% N - MISCELLANEOUS 19% o - MANAGEMENT AND STAFF PERSONNEL CLUSTER 1% P - AIRCRAFT AND MUNITIONS SECURITY PERSONNEL CLUSTER 2% TABLE 27 SELECTED TASKS PERFORMED AND NOT REFERENCED TO 811X2 STS (10 PERCENT OR MORE PERFORMING) PERCENT MEMBERS PERFORMING TNG 1ST 1ST 5-SKILL 7-SKILL TASK TASKS EMPH"~ JOB ENL LEVEL LEVEL DIFF -- E173 MAKE ENTRIES ON AF FORMS 1297 (TEMPORARY ISSUE RECEIPT) 4.27 24 29 33 31 2.58 E198 MAKE ENTRIES ON AF FORMS 629 (SMALL ARMS HAND RECEIPT) 3.58 19 23 22 16 2.69 E175 MAKE ENTRIES ON AF FORMS 1314 (FIREARMS REGISTRATION) 3.03 10 11 10 9 3.19 0541 ASSEMBLE OR DISASSEMBLE M-12 SHOTGUNS 3.02 18 17 16 9 4.44 0561 RECEIVE AND SECURE AMMUNITION, WEAPONS, OR EQUIPMENT 2.94 21 20 17 10 4.00 0549 INVENTORY AMMUNITION, WEAPONS, OR EQUIPMENT 2.28 12 14 13 8 4.26 0550 ISSUE AMMUNITION 1.72 12 13 11 6 3.09 ~ 0562 RECHARGE PORTABLE COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT BATTERIES 1.59 14 15 14 7 2.84 0555 MAINTAIN RECORDS ON AMMUNITION, WEAPONS, OR UNIT EQUIPMENT 1.11 9 10 9 4 4.65 * Task training emphasis rating of 2.06 is average Task training emphasis rating of 3.80 or above is high TABLE 28 POI BLOCKS RELFECTING LOW 811X2 FIRST ENLISTMENT TASK PERFORMANCE (LESS THAN 30 PERCENT RESPONDING) POI REFERENCE BLOCK-UNIT II-50 RESOURCE PROTEC­ TION (CRIME PREVENTION PROGRAMS) II-55 DETENTION PRO­ ~ GRAM OPERATION/ \0 ACTIVITIES TIME SELECTED SAMPLE TASKS (2:10) NO TASKS MATCHED (2:25) L477 SUPERVISE VISITING PERIODS OF PRISONERS L454 CONFRONT PRISONER DISTURBANCES L475 SEARCH DETENTION FACILITIES FOR UNAUTHORIZED ARTICLES L465 INSPECT PERSONAL BELONGINGS OF PRISONERS L464 INSPECT MAIL TO OR FROM PRISONERS E222 MAKE ENTRIES ON DD FObMS 629 (RECEIPT FOR PRISONER OR DETAINED PERSON) * Task training emphasis rating of 3.80 or above is high m~ Task difficulty rating of 5.00 is average TNG TASK EMPH-J: D IFf-!.""* 2.44 3.38 2.78 5.53 3.03 4.11 2.44 3.77 1.56 3.99 4.72 3.13 PERCENT MEMBERS PERFORMING FIRST JOB (N=360) 7 3 5 4 1 20 FIRST ENL (N=831) 9 5 6 6 2 27 F 811X2 MAJCOM COMPARISONS Tasks performed and background data for personnel of the major com­ mands (MAJCOM) with the largest 811X2 populations were compared to determine whether job content varied as a function of MAJCOM assignment. Generally, the largest percentages of duty time and 811X2 resources in each MAJCOM are committed to the performance of tasks pertaining to general law enforcement activities, along with forms preparation and administrative activities (Duties E and F - see Table 29). While the overall jobs performed across the various MAJCOMs were similar, some variations could be identified. A TC and SAC personnel were distinguished from the other commands to some degree by the relative amount of duty time spent on tasks pertaining to operating detention programs. Also notable was the time spent by PACAF .airmen on customs function tasks and the very limited amount of duty time spent by SAC personnel on ABGD operations. Summary A great many of the tasks pertaining to the major law enforcement responsibilities of the career ladder are performed in common across the largest using commands. While some variations in the relative time spent on the lesser I more specialized functions were identifiable, by-and-Iarge the vast majority of 811X2 personnel perform similar jobs, regardless of MAJCOM assignment. 70 --- ------------------------------------------------1iIIIII providing training (both initial and proficiency) to individual dogs, handlers, and military working dog teams; and supervising the overall care of the dogs and kennels (see Table 32 for representative tasks). Group members have a relatively broad job, performing an average of 92 tasks, with 56 tasks accounting for over 50 percent of their job time. DAFSC 81199 and CEM Code 81100. This group was discussed in Section II along with the 811XO DAFSC groups. Please refer to that discussion for more detailed information about this duty group. Table 32 displays representative tasks performed and also indicates the staff orientation of these senior NCOs. Summary Career ladder progression is well defined for A -shred personnel, with airmen at the 3-15-skill level spending the large majority of their job time performing technical law enforcement and military working dog handling tasks, while at the 7-skill level, supervisory, personnel training, administrative, and dog handling training functions become the more dominant features of the job. Nine-skill and CEM Code level personnel performed a predominantly staff­ oriented job with very little activity involving A-shred peculiar tasks. 73 ---------------------_._-------------------- - WA TABLE 30 NUMERICAL DISTRIBUTION OF 811X2A DAFSC GROUP MEMBERS ACROSS CAREER LADDER JOBS CAREER LADDER JOB GROUPS LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL CLUSTER (N=1,167) MILITARY WORKING DOG (MWD) HANDLER PERSONNEL CLUSTER (N=350) KENNEL SUPPORT SPECIALISTS (N=37) AIRCRAFT AND MUNITIONS SECURITY PERSONNEL CLUSTER (N=1,602) MISSILE SECURITY PERSONNEL CLUSTER (N=403) KEYS AND CODES CONTROLLERS (N=22) ARMORERS (N=205) AIR BASE GROUND DEFENSE (ABGD) PERSONNEL (N=362) ELITE GATE GUARDS (N=38) MILITARY CUSTOMS INSPECTORS (N=19) MANAGEMENT AND STAFF PERSONNEL CLUSTER (N=508) SECURITY FLIGHT CHIEFS (N=365) TRAINING PERSONNEL (N=157) PLANS AND PROGRAMS NCOs (N=12) INFORMATION SECURITY PROGRAM PERSONNEL (N=78) CRIME PREVENTION AND RESOURCE PROTECTION PERSONNEL (N=65) CORRECTIONS OR DETENTION PERSONNEL (N=79) REPORTS AND ANALYSIS SPECIALISTS (N=42) PASS AND REGISTRATION PERSONNEL (N=90) NOT GROUPED 74 DAFSC 81132A/ DAFSC 81152A 81172A (N=342) (N=68) 15 278 32 o o o o o 2 o 2 3 o o o o 1 o o 9 1 54 2 o o o o 1 o 1 2 2 1 o o o 1 o o 3 = DAFSC 81199/ CEM CODE (N=22lL 1 o o o o o 1 7 o o 182 o 4 1 12 o o o o 23 ~----~--------------------....... --------..--.---=----~-- TABLE 31 AVERAGE PERCENT TE1E SPENT PERFORMING DUTIES BY 811X2A DAFSC GROUPS ::AFSC DAFSC 81132A/ DAFSC 81199/ 81152A 81172A CEM CODE DUTIES (N=342) (N=68) (N=231) A PLANNING AND ORGANIZING 1 7 26 B DIRECTING AND IMPLEMENTING 2 8 24 C INSPECTING AND EVALUATING 2 9 29 D TRAINING 3 11 4 E PERFORMING FORMS PREPARATION AND ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS 14 9 4 F PERFORMING GENERAL SECURITY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT (LE) DUTIES 23 8 4 G PERFORMING LAW ENFORCEMENT OPERATIONS FUNCTIONS -k "k -;~ H PERFORMING INFORMATION SECURITY AND CRIME PREVENTION/ RESOURCE PROTECTIO~; FUNCTIONS i~ * 3 I MAINTAINING MISSILE SYSTEMS SECURITY i'( ";~ ,;t~ J MAINTAINING BASE, WEAPONS STORAGE, OR AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS SECURITY i~ -I~ .... " K PARTICIPATING IN DISASTER CONTROL * .'. "'I, " L OPERATING DETBNTION PROGRAMS ~t, 2 -/, M PERFORMING CUSTOMS FUNCTIONS 2 2 ,~ N HANDLING MILITARY WORKING DOGS (MWD) 42 38 .'. " 0 PERFORMING INDIVIDUAL WEAPONS MAINTENANCE OR ARMORY FUNCTIONS 5 2 1 P PERFORMING ACTUAL OR SIMULATED EMERGENCY SERVICE TEAM (EST) OPERATIONS -k i'r "k Q PERFORMING ACTUAL OR SIMULATED AIR BASE GROUND DEFENSE (ABGD) OPERATIONS 2 2 2 * Less than 1 percent I 75 mm: TABLE 33 SELECTED MILITARY WORKING DOG FUNCTION TECHNICAL TASKS DAFSC 81l72A (PERCENT MEMBERS PERFORMING) TASKS N493 ADMINISTER EMERGENCY FIRST AID 1'0 DOGS N526 PROVIDE PROFICIENCY TRAINING TO HANDLERS IN CARE AND GENERAL HANDLING OF DOGS N504 FEED AND WATER DOGS N494 ADMINISTER PRESCRIBED MEDICATIONS TO DOGS N507 MAINTAIN DOG HANDLING EQUIPMENT N508 MAINTAIN DOG KENNELS OR KENNEL AREAS N515 PREPARE DOGS FOR SHIPMENT N535 TRAIN DOGS IN ON AND OFF LEASH OBEDIENCE N534 TRAIN DOG TEAMS TO PERFORM DUTIES WHILE EXPOSED TO GUNFIRE 1603 EXERCISE AND GROOM DOGS NS06 INSPECT DOG HEALTH CHECK POINTS N533 TAKE DOGS TO SICK-CALL NS16 PREPARE PRESCRIBED DOG DIETS N523 PROVIDE INITIAL TRAINING TO MWD TEf~S IN DETECTION OF DRUGS N520 PROVI~E INITIAL TRAINING TO DOG HANDLERS IN DETECTING CHANGES IN DOG BEHAVIOR 78 DAFSC 81l72A (N=68) 77 74 72 72 69 69 68 68 66 65 65 63 59 56 54 AN AL YSIS OF 811X2A T AFMS GROUPS Utilization patterns for 811X2A respondents in different Total Active Federal Military Service (TAFMS) groups were reviewed to determine if there were differences in tasks performed. Following a pattern similar to many AFSCs, performance of duties involving supervisory, managerial, and training tasks increased for A-shred airmen as time in service inc:reased. Performance time on tasks in the technical law enforcement and forms preparation and administration duties declined as these airmen moved toward career status (97+ months TAFMS). Time spent by career airmen on tasks in Duty N, Handling Military Working Dogs (MWD) , was still very high (38 percent of their relative job time - see Table 34), but close examination of the specific tasks performed revealed that the types of tasks performed varied between the first- and second-enlistment groups and the career group. Career airmen became more involved with tasks dealing with kennel management and initial and proficiency training for dogs, handlers, and MWD teams. An in-depth, detailed evaluation of the first-enlistment group will be presented in the A-shred TRAINING ANALYSIS section of this report. Comparisons of group perceptions of their jobs help career field mana­ gers understand some of the factors which may affect the job performance of today's airmen. These perceptions are captured by including job satisfaction questions in the survey instrument covering job interest, perceived utilization of talents and training, and reenlistment intentions. Table 35 presents data displaying the responses of selected T AFMS groups. Comparisons were also made between comparative samples of Direct Support career ladders surveyed in 1983. Although expressed job interest and perceived use of talents indicators for each of the time groups are reasonably high, they are somewhat less than those of the comparative sample groups. Perceived use of training by A­ shred personnel is very positive for first-term airmen, but drops somewhat in the other time groups. Positive reenlistment intentions are markedly higher than the comparative sample groups for the first-enlistment and career groups. By-and -large, 811X2A personnel indicate they are fairly well satisfied with their jobs and first-enlistment airmen believe the training they received is being applied in their jobs. 79 - TABLE 34 RELATIVE TIME SPENT ON DUTIES BY 811X2A TAFMS GROUPS MONTHS TAFMS 1-48 L.9-96 97+ DUTIES (N=228) (N=107) (N=75) A PLANNING AND ORGANIZING ..,,, 3 8 B DIRECTING AND IMPLEMENTING 1 5 9 C INSPECTING AND EVAI,UATING ..,t( 5 8 D TRAINING 1 6 11 E PERFORMING FORMS PREPARATION AND ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS 15 14 9 F PERFORMING GENERAL SECURITY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT (LE) DUTIES 26 19 8 G PERFORMING LAW ENl'ORCEMENT OPERATIONS FUNCTIONS . '. .' . j" " " H PERFORMING INFORMATION SECURITY AND CRIME PREVENTION/ RESOURCE PROTECTION FUNCTIONS "'k it( it, I MAINTAINING MISSILE SYSTEMS SECURITY ..,~ "1'( 7~ J MAINTAINING BASE, WEAPONS STORAGE, OR AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS SECURITY i~ "k i'\ K PARTICIPATING IN DISASTER CONTROL "k 7\ it, L OPERATING DETENTION PROGRAMS i'( "k 1 M PERFORMING CUSTOMS FUNCTIONS 2 1 2 N HANDLING MILITARY WORKING DOGS (MWD) 44 39 38 0 PERFORMING INDIVIDUAL WEAPONS MAINTENANCE OR ARMORY FUNCTIONS 5 4 2 P PERFORMING ACTUAL OR SIMULATED EMERGENCY SERVICE TEAM (EST) OPERATIONS i~ 1 ~k Q PERFORMING ACTUAL OR SIMULATED AIR BASE GROUND DEFENSE (ABGD) OPERATIONS 2 2 3 * Less than ~ ~ercent 80 - tasks is appropriate. It should be noted, though, that most of these tasks were rated less than average (5.00) in task difficulty (TD). Training per­ sonnel and subject-matter specialists should review these and other tasks with low TD ratings to determine if some might be taught effectively and efficiently outside the formal technical school environment. As was mentioned in the 811XO TRAINING ANALYSIS section, TE ratings for weapons, equipment, and tactics relating to 811XX personnel are displayed in Appendix B, Tables B1 through B3. Paragraph 19, 811X2. Specialty Training Standard (S1'S) A comprehensive review of paragraph 19, MILITARY WORKING DOG PROGRAM (peculiar to A-shred personnel), STS 811X2, dated November 1982, compared 8TS items to survey data. Entries pertaining to general knowledge information or subject-matter knowledge requirements were not evaluated. Overall, the STS provides comprehensive coverage of the job performed by A-shred personnel in the field. The various elements of MILITARY WORKING DOG PROGRAM portion of the STS are all well supported by survey data and no significant problems or deficiencies were identified. 811X2A Plan Of Instruction (POI) Ri'lSp.cl on thp nrpviolls1v mp.ntinnpn '<:!ssist;:mf'13 fr()m tl3f'hl"'lif'.<ll ~,..h()nl subject-matter specialr;t~· i~·-~~tch-ing-i~~~nt~~Y-t~~-k; t;; -the -iALRB1l32A:ooi POI, dated 24 October 1983, a computer product was generated displaying the results of the matching process. Information furnished for consideration includes training emphasis (TE) and task difficulty (TD) ratings, as well as percent members performing data for first-job (1-24 months TAFMS) and first-enlistment (1-48 months TAFMS) personnel. The POI appears to thoroughly address the requirements for first-term airmen training in the A-shred of the 811X2 career ladder. All blocks and units of instruction dealing with performance items are strongly supported by survey data based on percentages of first-term personnel performing signi­ ficant dog handling related tasks or the high training emphasis ratings calculated for the tasks. 83 I TABLE 36 REPRESENTATIVE TASKS PERFORMED BY 811X2A FIRST ENLISTMENT PERSONNEL TASKS N503 N507 N508 N504 N509 N506 N513 F313 N494 N495 E189 N510 N535 N512 El71 E170 F240 N511 N493 F235 F261 0542 F257 F232 E183 EXERCISE AND GROOM DOGS MAINTAIN DOG HANDLING EQUIPMENT MAINTAIN DOG KENNELS OR KENNEL AREAS FEED AND WATER DOGS MAINTAIN DOG TRAINING AND UTILIZATION RECORDS OR CHARTS (AF FORMS 321 OR 323) INSPECT DOG HEALTH CHECK POINTS PERFORM AS AGITATOR OR DECOY IN CONTROLLED AGGRESSION TRAINING STAND GUARDMOUNT ADMINISTER PRESCRIBED MEDICATION TO DOGS CONDUCT BUILDING SEARCHES FOR PERSONNEL WITH MWD MAKE ENTRIES ON AF FORMS 321 (MWD TRAINING AND UTILIZATION RECORD) PARTICIPATE IN DOG DEMONSTRATION EVENTS TRAIN DOGS IN ON AND OFF LEASH OBEDIENCE PA'1'lUH P(lQ'T'Q (l},J 'C'()(VI" r.1T"'U lV,,",,, _"'c5~"""'_~ ..=.."":.J.a..:A.J _,.. .. A V .... J..!. Po.!....!..!..!. U'-~UU MAKE ENTRIES ON AF FORMS 1169/1170 (STATEMENT OF WITNESS) MAKE ENTRIES ON AF FORMS 1168/1170 (STATEMENT OF SUSPECT) CONDUCT BUILDING SECURITY CHECKS PATROL POSTS IN VEHICLES WITH DOGS ADMINISTER EMERGENCY FIRST AID TO DOGS APPREHEND INTRUDERS OR SUSPECTS DEPLOY IN RESPONSE TO DURESS OR ALARM ACTIVATIONS ASSEMBLE OR DISASSEMBLE M-16 RIFLES CONFRONT ON-BASE DISTURBANCES ADMINISTER FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS MAKE ENTRIES ON AF FORMS 1668 (FIELD INTERVIEW) Average number of tasks performed - 60 84 PERCENT MEMBERS PERFORMING (N:::228) 93 90 89 86 85 85 85 82 80 78 77 76 72 72 72 72 69 68 67 59 58 57 57 54 51 1 PATROL DOG HANDLERS 15% FIGURE 4 DISTRIBUTION OF 811X2A FIRST-ENLISTMENT PERSONNEL ACROSS SPECIALTY JOBS (N=228) PATROL AND DETECTOR DOG HANDLERS 64% 85 MISCELLANEOUS 5% '-_ PATROLMEN AND INS TALLATION ENTRY CONTROLLERS 3% ELITE GATE GUARDS 1% "'''-- KENNEL SUPPORT SPECIALISTS 10% MWD TRAINERS AND SUPERVISORS 2% TABLE 38 PERCENTAGE OF TIME SPENT ON DUTIES BY 811X2A MAJCOM GROUPS SAC PACAF ATC USAFE TAC MAC AFLC DUTIES (N=82) (N=81) (N=61) (N=55) (N=47) (N=39) (N=29) A PLANNING AND ORGANIZING 2 2 3 2 1 3 4 B DIRECTING AND IMPLEMENTING 3 3 5 2 3 3 6 C INSPECTING AND EVALUATING 3 2 4 3 2 3 5 D TRAINING 4 3 10 2 3 3 4 E PERFORMING FORMS PREPARATION AND ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS 14 12 8 15 17 18 11 F PERFORMING GENERAL SECURITY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT (LE) DUTIES 26 19 10 20 28 24 15 G PERFORMING LAW ENFORCEMENT OPEFL~TIONS FUNCTIONS * * * it, * * * H PERFORMING INFORMATION SECURITY AND CRIME PREVENTION/ RESOURCE PROTECTION FUNCTIONS * * * * ;~ i~ 7, I MAINTAINING MISSILE SYSTEMS SECURITY * oJ_ oJ_ * 0 0 0 " " J MAINTAINING BASE, WEAPONS STORAGE, OR AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS 00 SECURITY * 2 .'- ,,, oJ_ .'- * " " " 00 K PARTICIPATING IN DISASTER CONTROL i~ "1\ * * * * ;~ L OPERATING DETENTION PROGRAMS 1 * 1 -k ..,~ * * M PERFORMING CUSTOMS FUNCTIONS 3 2 -1: 3 1 * * N HANDLING MILITARY WORKING DOGS (MWD) 37 40 52 42 35 40 51 0 PERFORMING INDIVIDUAL WEAPONS MAINTENANCE OR ARMORY FUNCTIONS 4 7 3 5 5 3 2 P PERFORMING ACTUAL OR SIMULATED EMERGENCY SERVICE TEAM (EST) OPERATIONS * ,"/, * 2 ;~ ,,, 0 Q PERFORMING ACTUAL OR SIMULATED AIR BASE GROUND DEFENSE (ABGD) OPERATIONS * 5 2 2 2 1 1 * Less than 1 percent 811X2A MAJCOM COMPARISONS Tasks performed and background data for personnel of the major com­ mands (MAJCOM) with the largest 811X2A populations were compared to determine whether job content varied as a function of MAJCOM assignment. The largest percentage of duty time and 811X2A resources in each MAJCOM are committed to the performance of tasks pertaining to handling and working with dogs (see Table 38 1 Duty N). Time spent on these tasks varied some across commands, but review of the specific dog handling tasks and combination of tasks indicates there is no substantial variation in jobs across the commands. Review of the tasks pertaining to general law enforcement responsibilities and preparation of forms associated with that function (Duties F and E) indicates that A-shred personnel are similar to 811X2 career ladder airmen in the type of tasks performed in these areas. As was concluded in the 811X2 career ladder analysis, there are no significant distinctions across MAJCOM assignments where these duties are concerned. Summary A large number of tasks pertaining to handling military working dogs and the general law enforcement responsibilities for A-shred personnel are performed in common by substantial numbers of airmen across the major using commands. Although there are some minor variations in time spent on duties involving some of the more limited functions of the A-shred of the 811X2 career ladder I by and large the vast majority of A-shred personnel can be characterized as performing essentially similar jobs, regardless of MAJCOM assignments. 87 SECTION V COMPARISON OF CURRENT SURVEY TO PREVIOUS SURVEY The results of this survey were compared to those of the most recent 81lXX Occupational Survey Report (OSR) 1 AFPT 90-811-137 and AFPT 90-812-138 , dated August 1979. Comparisons were made to career ladder structure (specialty job) groups and to job satisfaction indicators for 811XX first-enlistment groups. Table 39 displays the comparison of the career ladder structure appli­ cable to most 811XO 1 811X2 1 and 811X2A personnel in 1984 and the structure found for equivalent ladders in the 1979 sample. Only one group found in the current study could not be linked to some extent to groups identified in 1979. The AIR BASE GROUND DEFENSE (ABGD) PERSONNEL group was formed by 811XX personnel who 1 although possibly assigned to other security police functions 1 had significant ABGD responsibilities and held various response force team assignments. This display also clearly shows the sepa­ ration of jobs performed by Security, Law Enforcement, and MWD qualified personnel and speaks well for the validity of the current classification struc­ ture. Aside from the ABGD PERSONNEL group, it is further apparent that there has been no substantial change in job patterns overall, and these data reflect a relatively stable career field since 1979. Review of the comparisons of job satisfaction indicators of first-term airmen across the 81XXX career field, as displayed in Table 40, reflects that the percentages for 1984 groups are higher across the board. (NOTE: the figures for 811X2A personnel in 1979 represent only those MWD qualified airmen working in Law Enforcement). The responses regarding favorable consideration for reenlistment are particularly gratifying I since high first­ term airmen retention builds field experience levels and relieves pressure on the ABR course training programs. Even though positive responses are higher in each of the career ladders 1 there is still cause for concern about the very low perceptions 811XO first-term airmen reported on job interest and use of their talents. This concern was addressed earlier in this report. 89