MEMORANDUM FROM THE ARMY FAMILIES FEDERATION
(OCTOBER 2000)
INTRODUCTION
The Evidence
The evidence for this memorandum has been gathered
from the most recent tour of the CGS' Briefing Team (Jun-July
2000) and from Focus Group discussions held in preparation for
the forthcoming AFF/SSAFA World-wide Survey, as well as the regular
input to AFF from Army families.
The Current Situation
As Chairman of the AFF, I am in a privileged
position, whereby I have some knowledge of policy and decisions
being made at high levels within the Army, particularly in matters
affecting personnel issues and families. I believe there is now
real commitment at High Command levels, to supporting Army personnel
and their families, but that there are a number of factors which
make progress difficult:
(i) Appropriate resourcing.
(ii) The complex structure of the Army, which
means that there are not always single-answer solutions to issues.
(iii) The length of time needed to consult
appropriately, to assess information, and to action measures in
response.
(iv) Poor communication within the organisation.
(v) Inconsistent attitudes and performance
amongst personnel throughout the organisation.
(vi) A deeply felt cynicism amongst the people
the Army now wishes to support.
It will take time for the change in culture
to permeate the whole organisation, but as long as the commitment
from the top is sustained, progress will be made.
Mobility
The mobility of Service life leads to many of
the major causes of dissatisfaction: inconsistent housing; difficulties
with childcare and schooling; disruption to spouse careers; problems
with access to health care and other services available to the
civil population; a lack of identity and self-respect. Whilst
many families still welcome the variety of this lifestyle, there
is also an increasing desire for a consistent baseline in provision
of major services, as well as a fundamental wish to make personal
choices.
Choice
As long as the Army wishes to retain families
and encourage Accompanied Service, it will have to compensate
realistically for the disadvantages of mobility: it must be able
to offer flexibility, and genuine choice.
Following from the wish to choose, comes the
need for more information: families who once accepted Army life
without explanation, now feel the need to be better informed,
in order to make appropriate personal choices.
Current Deployment Patterns
The expeditionary nature of current deployment
has significantly altered the way of life for Army families: separation
has increased dramatically. When the family is in UK, the effect
is often that they seek greater support from their own family,
or civilian friends, thus diluting the Army community feeling.
For families abroad, expeditionary deployment can remove all the
advantages of an overseas posting when very little time might
be spent sharing the experience with a partner, and the difficulties
arising must be faced alone.
The Army must establish a reasonable expectation
for time families spend together, and fulfil the expectation.
It must continue to enhance communications when families are apart,
and guarantee support for families when their partners deploy.
The Future
Many of the current reforms are seen by families
simply as reaching parity with normal civil expectations, and
will not necessarily be celebrated when they are achieved. If
expectations continue to increase at current pace, it is possible
that ongoing reforms will never catch up sufficiently to maintain
the interest of future generations.
Like any other employer, the Army must offer
potential recruits something different from the alternative. Because
the Army lifestyle demands unique commitment from soldiers' families,
it must also be attractive to them. Once a soldier has joined—or
if he marries after joining—he will only stay if he and
his family gain benefit from belonging. The Army must therefore
value all its people and be seen to do so; it must encourage them
to participate in the organisation and make them proud to belong.
It must live up to its corporate slogan and Be The Best for families
as well as soldiers.
With the Army's current structure, the delivery
of this strategic aim rests largely in the hands of Unit Commanders:
most families' perception of the Army come from how they are treated
by their partners' Units.
REPRESENTATION OF
FAMILIES' VIEWS
General
All the recent personnel studies have recognised
that expectations amongst individuals in society have risen over
recent years. This has three significant effects on perceptions
of Army life:
(i) Soldiers and their families make constant
comparisons between their lifestyles and those of family and friends
outside the Army.
(ii) Soldiers and their families are highly
conscious of apparent inconsistencies of lifestyle within different
parts of their own organisation: they expect a consistent standard
of domestic life from one posting to another, and are less tolerant
of apparent discrimination between groups of personnel within
the Army (eg rank differences/lack of parity between single and
married soldiers/inequalities for foreign families).
(iii) They expect to be able to exercise
choice in matters of lifestyle.
In considering the Army's relationship to modern
society, decision-makers need to identify which personal expectations
are reasonable, and which may not be supportable in relation to
the core business of the Army.
Pay, Allowances and Charges
AFF welcomes the continuing contribution made
by the Armed Forces Pay Review Body: as soldiers increasingly
compare themselves with civilian contemporaries, it is essential
that an independent body is maintained to assess Forces pay and
conditions in relation to civilian rates.
It is important to families that pay reflects
the commitment to 365-days/year duty—especially as it is
often difficult for families to sustain two incomes because of
the mobile lifestyle. Junior ranks' pay is generally considered
low, with some families commenting that civilians on similar rates
would make up with overtime pay. IT-skilled soldiers are significantly
underpaid compared with successful civilians in their field.
Allowances are a constant source of confusion:
clearer guidelines as to entitlements would help. Inconsistencies—real
or perceived—cause irritation and frustration. Current levels
of operational deployment have identified separation allowances
and travel allowances as of particular significance. Recent adjustments
are still being assimilated.
Other recent adjustments address the recognition
that single soldiers can be disadvantaged compared with married
soldiers. This is especially relevant when there are greater numbers
of older single soldiers because of demographic trends (divorce,
separation, later marriage), and more with dependent children.
Boarding School Allowance: Sending children
to boarding school is not necessarily a privilege. Parents who
choose boarding school for their children for the sake of a stable
education, wish to use the best schools available. The method
of calculating BSA does not reflect the actual cost of schools
commonly used by parents.
Charges as related to families are mainly connected
with damage to quarters, which are not always reflected in repairs
to the quarter. This appears to be improving in UK, but was a
stated concern during the CGS's Briefing Team visit to Cyprus.
Pensions and Compensation
The provision of the Service pension is seen
as a valuable element in the remuneration package for servicemen
and their families.
The AFF welcomes the recent ruling on widows/widowers'
pensions (although we have recently been contacted by one of the
1 per cent of widows who will not receive a pension for life,
because she has already re-married, and is not entitled to claim:
she comments that she could divorce her current husband, reclaim
her widow's pension, and then re-marry him!).
We have heard concerns that individuals often
have to struggle to claim compensation for long-term illness/injury
(eg Gulf War Syndrome).
Training and Education
There is a need to address inconsistency in
performance across the organisation, by better promulgation of
the change in culture. Success is currently dependent on the natural
abilities of personalities (Some will always be more naturally
able than others, but inconsistency can be reduced by training
and education).
Communication
Spouses of all ranks express concern that their
partners feel undervalued, and often powerless. Commanders from
Platoon level upwards should be trained in effective two-way communication,
so that members of the organisation feel that they are heard and
valued, and also understand the reasons for decisions made. The
GEMS scheme is an excellent way of recognising the voices of service
personnel.
From a Family perspective, the main points of
contact with the Army are the Unit Welfare Officer, the Regimental
Administrative Officer, and the Commanding Officer. Training—and
appointment procedures—should emphasise the imperative for
effective communication skills in these posts, and should stress
that their remit includes families.
Career Training
Spouses see training for soldiers as a good
provision in theory, but the reality can be inadequate: some find
that there are not enough places on promotion courses, and they
feel their partners are disadvantaged. TA personnel claim that
they are low priority for course places. Courses can be interrupted
by deployments (although distance learning facilities should address
this). Some spouses feel that more advanced courses entail too
much extra study in their partners' family time, and more consideration
should be given to time off work for study.
Spouse Training
Spouses would feel better supported if they
were given free access to appropriate military-run training courses,
because the Army lifestyle often prevents them from completing
civilian training courses.
Children's Education
Increasingly, the stability of children's education
is a factor which will determine whether soldiers leave the Army,
or whether they serve unaccompanied while other members of the
family stay in one place.
Accommodation
Accommodation represents the biggest single
impact on the quality of a soldier's domestic life. Human beings
wish to create homes, but the mobility of Army life means that
the soldier's home is uprooted regularly. Soldiers and families
accept this—to an extent—as part of the way of life,
but they would feel better supported if they saw an aim to minimise
the effect of disruption on domestic life, by the maintenance
of a consistent and reasonable level of accommodation and domestic
facility throughout the organisation.
Married Quarters
DHE is working to improve conditions, but is
dependent on appropriate funding, and is achieving varied success
across the country. DHE only operates, however, in mainland Great
Britain: Housing in Northern Ireland, Germany and Cyprus is managed
differently. Comments from these locations during the recent tour
of the CGS's Briefing Team suggest that improvements are overdue.
As well as a more consistent standard of housing
from one posting to another, soldiers and families expect their
accommodation to match—or better—the equivalent in
civilian life, and to reflect their family need rather than the
rank of the serving soldier. There is concern that for larger
families (sometimes resulting from multiple marriages) the size
of available housing does not match need.
Rent is currently seen as low in comparison
to civilian rates, and this is considered essential to compensate
for the mobility and lack of choice.
There is concern and misunderstanding about
the current process of disposal of quarters, although DHE and
the Army are working to improve understanding. Mixed Estates are
a source of apprehension, and resources have deliberately been
applied to sensitive management of this problem. Best practice
is being emphasised and appears to be working well. The situation
should be carefully monitored.
House Purchase
Evidence shows an increasing tendency for soldiers
and their families to buy their own homes and settle in one location:
this is most prevalent amongst older families. Critical times
are when children reach secondary school age, and when the serving
soldier approaches the end of his/her career. Other reasons given
are consideration of a career for the non-serving spouse, and
support from extended family and civilian community because the
soldier is more often away on operations. Some families have said
they want their own home in order to establish themselves in a
community, because the Army environment has lost this feeling.
Other families to consider are unmarried partners
of soldiers, who often have dependants, and are not eligible for
Service Families Accommodation. There is mixed feeling amongst
current personnel about eligibility of unmarried partners for
housing. We do receive correspondence, however, from soldiers
with long-term partners who feel disadvantaged by the current
policy.
House Purchase is a subject of increasing concern:
purchase is considered important in preparation for retirement,
and the age restriction on the Long Service Advance of Pay is
seen as disadvantageous to Army personnel in comparison with the
Navy. As house prices continue to increase (especially in the
south of England) LSAP is seen as low. There is also concern that
the regulations restrict purchase to the UK only. Some families
say they would like more advice: JSHAO could be better advertised
for this purpose. Another suggestion is that the Army might consider
encouraging house purchase, but offering support for letting,
in order to maintain use of SFA.
Choice
The points above emphasise the desire amongst
soldiers and their families to exercise free choice about their
lifestyle. Such choice is most easily managed in the UK, and as
long as it continues, is likely to exacerbate the differences
between service life in Great Britain and overseas. While support
for accompanied service is appreciated, there is a perception
that unaccompanied service is penalised, and therefore choice
is restricted.
Families Policy/Service Families Task Force
In spite of considerable efforts made recently,
there was still a surprisingly strong feeling expressed in AFF
Focus Group discussions that the Army does not consider family
needs, and families are deemed "excess baggage".
There is acknowledgement that the Army has been
listening to families' views, but there is still considerable
doubt that any significant action will be taken as a result. There
has been such a lack of response for 25 years or more (the Spencer
report identified problems in 1976 which are still key issues—housing;
children's education; healthcare; spouses' loss of identity) that
many families are deeply cynical, and do not believe there will
be a real culture change.
Recent positive developments are only fully
acknowledged by families who have experienced direct benefit—eg:
revised rules for student loan applications. To convince families
that they are really valued, the Army must deliver—and publicise—measures
which positively and obviously affect the majority of people:
there is cautious optimism for the forthcoming Cleaning Scheme
in UK.
Employment for Spouses is an increasing area
of dissatisfaction: there is a desire for spouses to be able to
maintain rewarding careers instead of simply holding jobs. Spouses
feel that the Army and MoD could be more supportive in facilitating
work opportunities for spouses: some spouses applying for—and
working in—military jobs overseas feel they are disadvantaged
compared with locally-recruited civilians, or UK-recruited civilians
in equivalent posts.
Where it is known, The Service Families Task
Force is seen as a good and positive initiative, and those who
know of its successes applaud them—but it is not universally
known. Its achievements are also being monitored: families wholeheartedly
welcome the opportunity for Min(AF) to intervene on their behalf
in other Government matters. Yet if this intervention does not
achieve real improvements, service families will remain at a disadvantage
and the good intention will be irrelevant. For example, as a result
of Ministerial intervention, schools admissions policy now advises
local authorities to be sensitive to the needs of service children—but
this is not yet bringing large-scale resolution of the admissions
problem. The rules for claiming Job Seekers' Allowance have been
changed, but individuals are still finding it difficult to obtain
the allowance.
These stages of reform must be established quickly,
and then improved upon in order to consolidate current progress.
Once sound and favourable conditions are firmly in place as a
baseline, the Army will have a secure foundation on which to build
Families Policies for the future.
Facilitating return to civilian life
Resettlement provision has improved recently.
Housing is still an issue (see above).
There is some dissatisfaction amongst spouses
that only limited elements of resettlement facilities are available
to them. They feel that their spouse could not have committed
to the Army without marital support, that they are often as likely
as their serving spouse to become a significant earner on retirement,
and that adjustment to civilian life will affect both partners
equally. The resettlement package should therefore totally incorporate
the spouse.
CONCLUSION
The soldier of today—and of tomorrow—undoubtedly
has higher expectations than his equivalent in the past. The key
issues are: respect for the individual; choice in lifestyle matters;
flexibility within the system to accommodate personal need; parity
with the civilian population; and equality of provision within
the service.
The Army must determine how far these personal
expectations can be accommodated by the needs of the operational
function, how far they must be accommodated in order to
attract the right people, and in what ways they might be limited.
It must then make its terms clear so that recruits—and their
families—know and understand their commitment.
| 
