Chief of Staff, US Army

4

2ES '

White Paper 1983

The Army Family

LO)

'Tt

u

¢N

< DTIC

I'ELECTE

JL20 19B4~

D

DISTIBUTION S IA r- i r'

Aproved fer public eIlecase

Distribution Unlimited

4. .]
Chief of Staff, US Army

White Paper 1983

The Army Family

A'c'7,jon For

D T IC TUR 4

Distril-ution/ -

Ave' 1. bllity Codes

I ~ i L and/or

D ~i . c
UNITED STATES ARMY

THE CHIEF OF STAFF

15 August 1983

TO: The Soldiers, Civilians, and Family Members of the US Army

The Constitution of the United States calls for raising and maintaining an Army for the purpose of national defense. As a consequence the Army's first

priority must be to execute the missions entrusted to it by political

authority. While this priority is clear, the Army can and must assure within

available resources and commitmrents adequate care for families of its members.

Although we row have the smallest Army in 30 years, improvements are

underday to strengthen the Army's capabilities for deterring war and for winning war should deterrence fail. During this decade several hundred new

systems of equipment will be distributed to the Active Army and Reserve Components. Through tough, realistic training such as that at the National

Training Center, readiness of the Army has increased. Manning initiatives

including the Regimental System, coupled with the high qualitJ of recruits ard

reenlistees, continue to strengthen the human dimension of the Army.

The Army Goals have become the management tools for the planning and programing necessary to move our Army to the future in the most effective way

balancing constrained resources and force improvement requirements.

Since the Army's strength lies in its people, the Human Goal undergirds

the other Amy Goals and realization of their full potential. A crucial

component of the Human Goal is our objective of fostering wholesome lives for

our families and communities. Policy reviews of this goal led to the need for

fonnally articulating a basic Army philosophy for families. The purpose would ue to direct in a comprehensive way our current and future ef^orts to foster

Army Families of Excellence within available resources and in concert with

other Army Goals.

The purpose of this paper is to assure that all of us--family members,

sponsors, the chain of command, and planners/programers--understand the

direction we a.e headed in development of an Army Family Action Plan.

Our stated philosophy isA partnership exists between the Army and Arm> Families.

The Army's unique missions, concept of service and lifestyle of its members--all affect the nature of this

partnership. Towards the goal of buiaing a strong

partnership, the Army remains conr;tted to assuring adequate

support to families in order to promote wellhess; to develop

a sense of community; and to st-engthen the mutually

reinforcing bonds between the Army and its families.

it4
The basis of this statement is the understanding that the Amy is an institution, not an occupation. Members take an oath of service to the Nation

and Amy, rather than simply accept a job. As an institution, the Army has

moral and ethical obligations to those who serve and their families; they, corrcspondiagly, have responsibilities to the Army. This relationship creates

a partnership based on the constants of human behavior and our American traditions that olend the responsibility of each individual for his/her own welfare

and the obligations of the society to its members.

Our unique mission and lifestyle affect this partnership in ways rarely

found in our society. Since we are in the readiness business, we are concerned not only with the number of people in the force but also with their

degree of comnitment--their willingness to not only train, but also tc deploy

and, if necessary, to fight--their acceptance of the unlimited liability

contract. The need for reciprocity of this commitment is the basis of the

partnership between the Army and the Army Family.

As a result, adequacy of support must be based on this unique partnership. The Army will never have all the resources it needs. Thereforo, we

must balance our dollars spent for family programs with those spent to discharge our moral responsibilities to give our soldiers the equipment, training, and leadership they need to have the best chance for survival (from a family perspective) and victory (from a societal perspective) on the battlefield. This is why we have targeted "Wellness" and "Sense of Community" as the najor thrusts of our efforts.

In promoting family wellness, we must also find ways to transfer the

skills, experiences, attitudes, and ethical strengths of the many healthy Army

families. Despite the pressures the vast majority of families manage and grow

through their involvement with Army life. We know that most Army families

find military lifestyle exciting; enjoy the opportunities for travel and

cultural interaction; and most importantly, have positive feelings about the

Army anu its place in our society. While the needs of families experiencing

stress must be considered, we must research and promote the positive aspects

of Army families as our primary goal.

The strength of a community lies in the contributions and talents of its

members. If the right elements are rogether in the right environment, the end

product is often greater than what would otherwise be expected from the elements functioning independently.

Uur concept of the Army-Family comnunity is such a relationship. The

family is linked to the unit by the servicemember and those unit programs in

which the family wishes to participate. The family and unit are linked also

by common community activities. Our goal is to increase the bonding between

the family unit and the Army community--create a sense of interdependence.

In fosterinq interdependence between the family and the Army, we are again

looking at the Army as an institution. The Army has a responsibility to its

members and the members have a responsibility to the Army and each other. If

for the greater good resources must be used now for modernization or other

programs, Army families, communities, and the chain of command must through

tneir own efforts insure that the reciprocity of commitment remains. It is

not a we/they situation, it is us--US as in U.S. Army.

( N A. WICKHAM, --(eneral, United States Amy

Chief of Staff
Need for a Philosophy

The Army's need to articulate a philosophy for its families has become an

institutional obligation. It is now generally recognized that families have an

important impact on the Army's ability to accomplish its mission. This is true

with other societal institutions as well. The family life of members of

organizations, once a private matter, is now an organizational concern.

Geographic mobility, changing family structures and the recognition that

competition between family and organizatio, .J needs can be destructive to

both parties has led to the realization that iamily issues are no longer a

private matter.

The proliferation of family-oriented programs in the private sector is a

recent phenomenon that demands increasing attention by organizational

leaders. These programs are tacit acknowledgment that people belong to

many interdependent groups and communities. What happens to individuals

in one group affects their relationship with and productivity in others. There

is a natural tension between groups to which people belong which leads to

competition for time, commitment and other resources. The Army is no

different from other institutions in its concern for families, but the unique

nature of military service lends an urgency to the need to develop 

a

coherent philosophy for the Army family.

Servicemembers and their families should be able to enjoy the benefits of

the society they are pledged to defend. Furthermore, the nature of the

commitment of the servicemember dictates to the Army a moral obligation

to support their families.

The Army has not always acknowledged this obligation. Its current

relationship io the family did not develop from a consistent rationale but,

rather, from the historical evolution of piecemeal programs.

Evolution of the Partnership: Army and Family

Families have always been associated with the Army. But the Army's

willingness to acknowledge the critical role families play in its mission has

moved from studied neglect, through ambivalent and selective inclusion of

families in the military community, to a sense that the development of 

a

family philosophy is an institutional imperative.

In the earliest years of its existence, the tiny Army of the new republic

avoided any reference to family issues in its formal regulations. Wives and

children followed their husbands as the Army began its trek across the

continent. The only regulation which could be interpreted as recognition of

their presence concerned the status of "camp followers" and gave regimental or post commanders complete and arbitrary authority o\,er all civilians.

Attitudes toward officers' families were the result of the unwritten professional code of the 18th century European officer corps: officers iook care of

their own. This same outlook assumed that enisted men never married, but

recognized that many senior noncommissioned officers did. In this recognition lies the root of the Army's acknowledgment of an implied obligation to

---7

' 42 [ , +
proviide the basics of life, e.g., shelter, food, and medical care. Gradually the

conditions of life or. the pre-Civil War frontier led to a recognition that the

obligation extended to officers' families as well. But its expression remained

informal (Figure 1).

EVOLUTION OF THE ARMY'S COMMITMENT TO THE ARMY FAMILY

1776-1847 .363 1891 1898 1913

Famili me rs S~'C~m Son a eaye r~s e raees of l ARsCo g et conmid ~dVteraUnn Arm S Ald y faile 0.1 c 'rStd bemaed mareo

Mietrynnel push ed N mr o dt ion sr as 11,i in9 term s 

~ mhfc nSMPN da~t s 6rpesns arnd * ole epd e ffct ncs t cos 0ec 1~i ecord ofactions ec e

1960 195 1954 19 52 9 42 1917

Famlyeer s A CO M1 Srga ay All VoDrrfte e s could64 OC ogreat

decelopof a net~sd er n ef t Pgm Force Suy Dpr a em Ga m aned llo tmsent uar'ry eued Su NAc roram o ur of basi so ay fols C ould Ssef

Prrodd 0ramls maj sors C~t~M,onay

192 1965 1981 d 1973dnt 175 9 97

Nee 3d Famlyy 24 amd Corlulya tot Chil Proga mm makes pousem Symposurnn

Fletfred Pay may established 6d00 i-Fam?0y be treted as Armed Forces Aduocacy I communlty report majority

Property in 152 8-.' o' EM duorZO reursed repeal

Proceedmngs Of t'epeederlts 0'uersea

Cering

FIGURE 1

By the late 1800's, several trends were evident Trhe obligation to provide

for basic family needs received formal recognition in Army regulations. At

the same time, the Army displayed a tendency to specify services and

benefits and restrict elig~bility to the families of officers and senior noncommissioned officers. The early 20th century Army considered families of enlisted men below noncommiscioned rank an unwanted burden. In fact,

Army regulations, with exceotions, forbade the peacvtirne enlistment or reenlistment of men with wives and minor children until 1942. Housing,

medical care in Army facilities, rations-in-Kind, and other associated benefits

were not formally available to enlisted families, although the Army continued

to recognize an implied responsibility to themn and frequently over-extended

its limited resources to meet that requirement.

2
Until World War I, the Army was small enough that most benefits were inkind. Following World War I, accelerating during the build-up for World War

II, and continuing to the present, the practice of authorizing monetary

entitlements in lieu of goods and services in-kind began to expand. For

example, today approximately 42 percent of soldiers live in the civilian

community and receive Basic Allowance for Quarters.

In 1940 the creation of a new civilian Army began as a result of the

enactment of the Selective Training and Service Act. The tremendous Army

expansion which followed the United States' entry into World War II found

no P.gency pre qred to assist young soldiers and their families experiencing

problems of adjustment, financial straits, wartime separation, and emotional

burdens. Heretofore, the Army dealt with families requiring emergency

support informally through post funds, cooperation with local charitable

organizations, and referrals to the American Red Cross. The American Red

Cross expanded their operations but resources were not enough to meet

growing needs for assistaice. This generated the need for Army members

to have an agency of ther own to which they could turn without resort to

public charity or welfare. The Secretary of War directed the organization of

Army Emergency Relief (AER) on 5 February 1942 as a private, nonprofit

organization, the express purpose of which was to collect and administer

funds to relieve distress arong Army members and their families. "The

Army Taket. Care Of Its Own" was adopted as the AER slogan. The

activities of AER and the Red Cross were carefully coordinated to prevent

duplication of effort. AER also maintained close contact and cooperation

with Federal, State, county, municipal, and private agencies to effectively

utilize all resources to relieve distress among soldiers and their family

members. After World War II, it was determined that AER should continue

as a private, nonprofit organization.

',

" - I . i 

- - - . ... . ->
The manner in which AER came into existence typified the Army's ad/hoc

approacn to dealing with families. Services and benefits came into existence piecemeal and evolved individually (Figure 2). Thus, housing and

rations-in-kind fell under the prerogat:ve of the old Quartermaster Corps,

health benefits were administered by The Surgeon General, and management of Army Emergency Relief programs developed into another bureaucracy. This trend continued in the post-World War II and Korean War period.

ARMY COMMUNITY SERVICES

5t I' 1 A

A- far , rre'b1,r..

D A q ' a n o , H 2 A D t o D o ,,I A 3 p I R t ,-L 3 q.' ,

am,y asssa! ,, raf-l Ass v stace J. v Io¢ 3 A $0

e3RD' 1' 2S1.

C I

PI.''.30 ' 1 $10 0' 

__j' 

C.d.C

-S Pogcam MoO CONUS Pc9ram - xpa'deo) ;O rq

AC S Ad~ozacy 301.?' I

f ,km l, p o Q('J0' o s AbA ,, a d fr - -p, 

WI! a.,,'.3000,3Affa.'.

FIGURE 2

The maintenance of a large standing peacetime Army in the Cold War

made it impossible to revert to the pre-World War II practice of discouraging

enlistment of married personnel. Sy 1960, family members outnumbered

uniformed personnel in the active force. The existence of this large

population led to the first attem t to establish an umbrella organization for

family services-The Army Community Service (ACS) Program. The creation of the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services

(CHAMPUS) in 1966 to ensure "adequate" medical care for military families

stationed at locations away from military treatment facilities was a big step

toward direct, planned, formalized action for family support.

4

"+1° I t 

I " j I 
The advent of the All Volunteer Force caused the Army's leaders to

address military personnel policies from a new perspective, especially with

respect to the enlisted ranks. With the growth of young enlisted families,

leaders began to recognized that the Army recruits individuals but retains

families.

Today's active Army consists of approximately 780,000 soldiers: 13

percent officers and 87 percent enlisted. The enlisted corps is young-94

percent are between the ages of 21 and 25; only 6 percent of the officeis

are that young. The majority of career soldiers are married. The total

number of family members (1,082,000) increases the total population of the

active Army force by one and a half times. About half this number (630,000)

are children; one-third (384,000) are spouses; and the other 68,000 are

dependent parents, etc. No aggregate numbers reflect the diversity of Army

families-there is no stereotypical Army family; different families have

different needs. But all Army families have needs civilian families don't

have.

Another look at Army family statistics reveals that more than 80 percent

of the active duty officers' corps is married; 78 percent of the enlisted career

force and 28 percent of first term enlistees are married (Figure 3). In sum,

over 50 percent of the Army's active duty force is married.

ACTIVE FORCE MARITAL CONTENT

100 -

90 -Officers

80 ----------------------- -- - 80 . .. . . . . ..... ........... .., .'........ . .- .. -'"

70 - Career

P

e tO,0 r

c 50 -

e

n 40 - Ist Term

30 - ---------------------------------------------------------

20 -

10 -

0 I. I l

74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83

FIGURE 3 Year

5
The size of Army families varies according to rank and time in service

(Figure 4).

NUMBER OF CHILDREN

100

10 Officer

80 1is! Term

70 - areer

e 60

50

30 /7

02 

10

None 1 or2 .3 or more

VIGURE 4

6
Another significant demograhic development for Army families is the

percentage of soldiers married to other soldiers. Note the relatively high

percentage of "first termers" who are married to other soldiers (Figure 5).

PERCENTAGE OF SOLDIERS MARRIED TO OTHER SOLDIERS,

Officers

Spouse in Military? Company Grade Fleld Grade

No 89 9% 97 6%

Yes-Active 8 5'. 1 9%

Yes-Reserve 1 5% 0 4%

Yes-National Guard 0 10, 0 1%

Enlisted

Spouse in Military? First Term Career

No 80 1 %o 896%

Yes-.Active 17 9% 9 lo

, Yes-Reserve 1 4% 0 9%

Yes-National Guard 0 7% 0 3%

40 PERCENTAGE OF SOLDIERS MARRIED TO SOLDIERS

e 3

e 30 20%

First Term

e 101%. 10 3%

Company Grade Career Enlisted n 10 /// 2 4*0

t Field Grade

FIGURE 5 Source August 1982 sample survey of military personnel

The Family Life Cycle (Figure 6) provides another view of the Army Family.

Family needs and developmental stages change as a family goes through

each stage. These stages raise different issues for providing family services

and for developing personnel policy. For example, our enlisted force will

probably be more concerned with day-care centers, while our our officers

will be more concerned with youth activities.

A FAMILY LIFE CYCLE MODEL

Pre-family Couple Couple Couple or w/o w/Small Couple Children Coupie

Single Children Children w/Teens Gone Retirement

36.3% 16.6% 37.5% 9.3% 0.2%

17 24 18 30 20 35 36 50 51 59 60

i FIGURE 6

7

- -I .-, *L II

. . ... . .. . . . . . . . .. _I
Another revealing demographic statistic regarding the Army family is that

more than 21 percent of Army spouses speak English only as a second

language The corresponding difficulty these spouses encounter in comunicaing needs and securing family support services exemplifies other issues

Airmy leaders must address in providing for the Army family.

The total Army Family includes more than the active force. The Reserve

Components add another dimension National Guard members total over

4 18,000; Army Reservists, 476,000 Family members of Reserve Component (RC) soldiers experience oroblems unique to the RC environment and

require special consideration by Army planners. Another important part of

the Total Army is the Department of the Army's civilians. There are over

322,000 U S. citizen civilians serving the Army worldwide. Of these, 36,000

Army civilian employees and their 12,000 family members serve with and

are part of overseas Army communities. Finally, retired servicemembers

(499,000) and their families (683,000) must be included.

The Family of the Future

In the late 1950's, the vast malority of Americans expected to be married.

Wives expected to play a supportive role to their husbands' careers, and to

center their lives around a traditional concept of family, homemaking, and

childrearing. These attitudes persisted into the 1960's, when 80 percent of

all Americans believed that being unmarried was an unnatural state for a

man or a woman. These attitudes have undergone radical revision.

The "traditional family" has been loined in increasing numbers by other

modes of family life: single parent families, couples without children,

marriages of convenience, and couples "living together." The single lifestyle is increasingly seen as normal and viable. The divorce rate has

skyrocketed in the last 20 years. It is predicted that by 1990 up to 50

percent of all children will have experienced divorce and remarriage in their

families.

Another significant change has been delayed or foregone childbearing.

Birthrates in the United States have declined significantly over the past 18

years, with 22 percent fewer children being born now than were born in

1959. The "baby bust" which followed the post-World War II "baby boom"

has reduced the number of children enrolled in elementary school by

approximately 10 percent in the same time period; this reduction is expected

to reach 17 to 18 percent by the mid-1980's. In addition, we are seeing

increases in life expectancy at birth from 70.8 in 1983 to 74.4 in 2033 for

men; from 78.2 in 1983 to 82.7 in 2033 for women. The drop in population

growth, coupled with increasing life exoectancy, is expected to raise the

median age from 30.9 years in 1983 to 41.1 years in 2033.

Nontraditional families and delayed or foregone childbearing have been

accompanied by changing expectations for spousal roles. Husbands are

questioning the costs of traditional fathering, for example, extended separations from their families, long working hours, limited contact with wives and

children, and, in the case of divorce, unquestioned assignment of child

custody to the mother. Wives' roles have undergone an even more dramatic

8

'AV
change Most noticeable is the greater tendency of wives to work outside

the home and to view their jobs as genuine careers rather than supplementary family income

These changing roles and expectations, along with growing econorr:c

needs and aspirations, have affected the Army family. As the following chart

(Figure 7) shows, more than half of career soldiers' spouses work outside

the home As with families in the civilian population, the number of Army

spouses working outside the home is increasing. More importantly, the

fin3ncial contribution of working spouses is greater in military families than

in civilian families. As the second chart (Figure 8) shows, the military

spouse's 1ob contributes 33 percent of family income, while the civilian

spouse contributes only 19 percent.

PERCENTAGE OF SPOUSES CURRENTLY WORKING

Officer Enhisted

Not Working 57% 53%

Working Full Time 30% 33%

Working Part Time 12'. 12%

Working Both 1'% 20

FIGURE 7

-AND MORE WIVES ARE WORKING/CONTRIBUTING

Working wives

1970 1980 Contr

Military 30% 52%% .

Civilian 411% 51% 19%0 Moving contributes

FIGURE 8family Dhardships

FIGURE 8

Employment of the spouse in a military marriage is open on a temporary

or part-time basis and at lower pay, due to frequent and unpredictable

military moves. However, career development (combining long and shortterm goals, training, education, and meaningful volunteer or salaried jobs)

has become a frequent demand among Army spouses and military members. Increasingly, career deveiopment of spouses has forced military

families to choose between one career or the other.

The rise in the number of military spouses who work outside the home

directly affects the spouses' ability to become involved in social and

volunteer activities, Army leaders must be alert to the stress placed on the military family with a working spouse and consider this when planning social

and volunteer programs. Efforts are ongoing to educate and involve military

9

I .2 J 

I,.-
~  

spouses in Army family support programs TRADOC schools now offer

orientation classes for those snouses of military members attending career

development courses on a permanent change of station Such initiatives

must recognize the "volunteer" aspect of spouse involvemc it in community

activities and capitalize on the individuality and interests of each family

member

Another significant change in families is their social and technical sophistication Today's young families are a product of the computer and media

age; they learn as well, if not p-etter, from media (television, radio, and films)

than from the traditional learning devices of prior generations (books and

newspapers). Their children, who will be 17 to 20 by the year 2000, will be

the "microkids" who will undrstand computers and software as their

parents understood today's media ioday's families are also a product of

the social movements of the 1960's and 1970's. the civil rights movement,

the women's movement, and consumer activism. They have internalized the

questioning, activist nature of these movements and have become adept at

identifying their problems and advocating for their common needs.

What do these trends mean for today's Army and the Army of the future?

* An increase in the percentage of soldiers who are married and who

have families, particularly in lower ranks and among younger soldiers

* An increase in stress caused by the perplexities of divorce, particularly

among career military families These problems include the needs of youth

being raised in single parent homes. custody disputes and child-kidnapping,

funds, and the problems of displaced homem~akers.

* An increase in nontraditional families, particularly single parents (including fathers raising children without the assistance of a wife).

9 Presently there is a greater demand for quality childcare, education for

youth, and youth activities. The tendency of today's families to dala"t

childbearing and have fewer children will change the needs of Army

families.

" An increase in the numbers of elderly dependents for Army families.

" An increased desire of the Army family to "own their own home" and

the associated command complexities generated by larger numbers of

families "living off-post."

* Demands for "equal rights" for fathers-time off for childrearing-and

more stability in an otherwise unstable career.

- Demands for career development assistance for Army spouses, and

accommodation of families in which the jobs of both husband and wife are

considered equally important.

• Political sophistication of Army families that organize at the grassroots

level to 'orm self-help and advocacy groups. We are already experiencing

this phenomenon. Beginning in the late 70's throughout USAREUR, spouses began to meet informally with commanders to air problems and

10

,'
seek solutions. A Women's Symposium was held in Munich, Germany, in

August of 1979 to give women representatives from VII Corps communities

the opportunity to identify and prioritize issues and concerns. In 1980, the

Officer Wives, Club of the Greater Washington Area sponsored the First

Army-Wide Family Symposium with the assistance of The Association of the

United States Army. In 1981 and 1982, the Family Action Committee (FAC),

a group composed of Army spouses in the Washington, D.C, area, held

worldwide Army Family Symposia. All those efforts have spread through

command channels and through informal grapevines. Family advisory/action groups have cropped up at several installations and are working with

the Army to identify, prioritize, and resolve specific family problems.

What Families Say They Need

As a result of the Army Family Symposia of 1980, 1981, and 1982,

dialogues have begun between the Army and its families, and among

families. Families say they need:

• Employment assistance-a referral service which responds to the

special needs of the Army family.

* An educational model-establishment of minimum standards of acceptable education for children.

" Health care-better medical and dental care.

" Volunteer recognition-documentation of professional development

acquired as a volunteer.

* Expanded transportation-ncluson of off-post families.

" Improved youth activities-stronger emphasis on youth orientation

programs.

* Improved sponsorship program, to include outsponsoring

- Improved quarters termination procedures-revision of cleaning/clearing policies and a more standardized system.

* Improved support of child care facilities and extended hours of operation.

* Recognition of and sensitivity to individuality of family members (particularly spouse's role).

* Centralization of activities which support family programs.

Demographic data, analysis of future trends, and the opening of dialogues

with families have highlighted the need to reevaluate existing programs and

policies in terms of a cogent, consistent philosophy. Our data bases can

assist us in a target analysis for family programs to better deliver the help

needed and properly utilize resources. For example, can we any longer

11

IA

- -tf~
afford to locate all of our family services on installations when the vast

majority of users live in trailer parks isolated from the main post, camp, or

station? Furthermore, our delivery systems need consistency and stability to

assist the family in adapting from one installation to another.

Building an Army Family Philosophy

The basis for developing any statement of philosophy for the Army Family

is the fact that the Army is an institution, not just a job. This is the

philosophical underpinning that will shape our statement of philosophy in a

much different context than if it were based on market place forces.

Because the Army is an institution, it has moral and ethical responsibilities

to those who serve, and those who serve have reciprocal responsibilities.

Some are stated in policies and regulations and others are implied or, like

retirement pay, are an informal contract. This relationship creates a partnership unique to our institution but still based on an understanding of the

behavior of human beings, groups of human beings called families, and

communities. For our culture, this behavior has its ba,,is in some well

accepted constants:

* Desire to upgrade (or retain) standard of living (better life) for familyespecially children.

Desire to reduce disruptions/mistrust-unpredictable hours, reassignments, separations, inadequate remuneration.

* Need to be needed-feeling of self worth:

Faniily-by servicemember.

Servicemember-by family.

Family and servicemember-by Army, community, nation.

• Confiience that basic needs will be recognized and fulfilled.

• Fxistence of opportunity to grow.

- Need to belong-sense of community.

* Institutional support of quality family time (quantity time-impossible).

- Expectation of fair and equitable treatment.

* Desire to accumulate "wealth"-home, savings, property, belongings.

-Competing demands-family versus professional choices.

* Conflicting requirements-family versus job tasks.

The impact at the societal level is our American tradition of blending the .1 responsibility of each individual for his/her welfare and the obligations of the

community to its members.

Our unique mission and resulting lifestyle affects this partnership in ways

that are far different than other elements of our society, even those who

have a similar service or life threatening mission such as policemen and

firemen.

12

'1

Jp

-- , ie 
The Army recognizes a moral obligation to its soldiers and their families.

Because of this, soldiers and their families must be able to enjoy the

benefits ot the society which they are pledged to defend. Requirements of

the unlimited liability contract of the servicemember mandate corresponding

obligations of support for Army families. It is understood that a stiong,

positive relationshi, exists between soldier commitment and force readiness. This relationship makes support of Army families an organizational

imperative.

We are concerned not only with the number of people in the force, but

with their degree of commitment-their willingness to not only train, but to

deploy and, if necessary, to fight-and their acceptance of the unlimited

liability contract. Such commitment is best engendered if soldiers view the

Army as a total institution with a high purpose-a fraternal organization

where the welfare of its members has a high value.

Soldiers and their families gain through the Army institution a sense of

common identity-a shared purpose and commitment to the overall mission. They come to view the Army as providing for their total basic needs in

exchange for total commitment-their acceptance of the unrestricted liability contract. Total individual commitment through satisfaction of the family

needs translates into readiness of the Total Army.

It is this reciprocity of commitment that makes the family programs so

important and justifies resource competition with other competing programs.

The unanswered question is, "How much is enough?"

The Army will never have all the resources it feels it needs Therefore, we

must balance those used for family programs with those spent to discharge

our moral responsibility to give our soldiers the equipment, training, and

leadership they need to have the best chance for survival (from a family

perspective) and victory (from a societal perspective) on the battlefield.

Unless we achieve an optimum balance, all of us become losers. Thus, we

must determine what is adequate based on how we can get the most return

on our investment.

An analysis of what Army Families say they need and the demograpl-ics of

the Army Family of the 1990's suggests two major thrusts for our programs:

a focus on Wellness as a proactive way to reduce costs and grow families of

excellence, and a nurturing of a Sense of Community to promote the

reciprocity of commitment.

It is the job of the Army's senior leadership to create those policies and

programs which support the ,'rmy family without being dictatorial. This is a

challenging task, requiring the building of linkages between the family and

the unit without destroying the integrity of either. We must recognize the

innate tension existing between these two entities, and the conflicting

demands they place on individual soldiers.

At an organizational level, we must balance the three components of

organizational excellence stressed by the Secretary of the %rmy and the

Chief of Staff of the Army: productivity, stability and adaptabity.

Productivity. For the Army, productivity equates to readiness. Our policies

must recognize that soldiers cannot perform efficiently while distracted by

13
overwhelming family concerns. Data support this assertion: studies of the

1973 Arab-Israeli war indicate that family stability promotes greater individual effectiveness. According to a recent examination of factors affecting

retention, when a tug-of-war occurs between a military family and a military

organization, the family usually wins. Of greater importance, we do not want

to generate or add to any such personal conflicts. In short, we do not

detract from organizational productivity by supporting Army families; rather,

taking care of our families enhances both retention and readiness.

Stability versus Adaptlblity. In stnving for excellence, the Army's family

porlicies must accommodate the seemingly conflicting factor. of stability and

adaplab.ty. We develop standardized systems at the Headquarters, Department of tne Army, that essentially stabilize family life throughout the

Army. Examples are our efforts to extend command tours, standardize

installation organization and delivery systems, and improve one station

inprocessing and outprocessing. Additionally. efforts to build cohesive units

and to move toward unit rather than individual replacement will enhance

assignment predictability. However, our stabilizing efforts must not stagnate

the Army of the future: we must incorporate adaptation in our Army-wide

systems. We must plan for change through more sophisticated use of

research and data on changing family demographics and through continued

communication with Army family members.

Finally, we must recognize that the sheer diversity of Army families means

that not all family needs will be responsive to Army-wide standardized

systems. We have and must continue to promote individualized, communityunique projects and programs initiated at command and, especially, installation level. These are our best evidence of organizational adaptability.

Wellness. Wellness is a key component of our thrust to reduce costs and

grow families of excellence. In this context, wellness is a state of mind

brought about by plans, programs, and policies that satisfy essential family

needs or, more accurately, that reduce or eiiminate stressful forces.

There are numerous stressful events common to military and civilian

families. The list below is not all-inclusive.

Death of a spouse

Marital separation

Death of a close family member

Personal injury or illness

Marriage

Loss of job

Retirement

Gain of a new family member

Change in financial status

Change to a different kind of work

Purchase of a home with a big mortgage

Change in work responsibilities

Trouble with business superior

Change in work hours or conditions

Change in residence

Change in schools

14

I t ,,
Because of the unique lifestyle of the military, these events tend to be

frequent and dramatic.

Family problems caused by stress, and those conditions which produce

stress, are cumulative-they become more severe over time-and are

costly to correct. In the past, we have generally attacked the problems only

after they have become severe and the impact obvious. For both humanitarian and readiness reasons, we need to shift the emphasis from a focus only on families already experiencing problems to programs designed to help

families cope with stress by building better stability and adaptability.

In promoting family wellness, we must also find ways to transfer the skills,

experiences and attitudes of the many healthy Army families. Despite the

pressures, the vast majority of families manage and grow through their

involvement with Army life. We know that most Army families find military

lifestyle exciting; enjoy the opportunities for travel and social interaction;

and, most importantly, have positive feelings about the Army and its place in

our society. While the needs of families experiencing stress must be

consideied, we must research and promote the positive aspects of Army

Families as our primary goal.

Sense of Community. A partnership has to exist between the Army as an

institution and the individuals who are a part of it: the soldiers, civilians, and

family members.

This partnership must center on a genuine sense of "the Army Community" with all members offered the challenge and opportunity to work together for the common good. We must take care not to misinterpret the age-old

slogan, "The Army takes care of its own." This in not a promise for the

institution to provide all of the individual and group support requirementsto make the members of the community dependent upon the institution and

the federally funded support structure. Rather the slogan is a challenge for

all of us in "the Army Community" to work together, as equal partners,

apply.ng our talents, skills, creativity and time to taking care of our own and

improving the community as a whole Each of us has a special responsibility

as a member of this worldwide community to work to make it a better place.

This is not at all dissimilar from our responsibility toward the civilian

communities in which we often live: you get out of the community what you

put into it, if you want it to be better or more responsive you have to be

willing to make a personal investment and commitment to it.

In the past several years, many Army community issues have been

surfaced through both internal and external forums. In addition, these

forums have surfaced a wealth of goods, new ideas to improve the Army

community. What we must do now is establish a framework within which we

can apply these good ideas and the talents of all of our community

members to the problems/issues known today and those that will continue

to surface in the futurp

In building this framework, we have to work with management tiers. We

have to create a flexible structure remembering while some broad issues

must have uniform treatment across the Army, each installation has its own

411 unique community character, issues and solutions. Our management frame15

,_ 1]
work has to allow for installation-specific programs and recognize that the

unique community character is the key to local issues and local solutions.

We also need to recognize, up front, that the community character is not

static-it changes continually as the community membership changes

Therefore, we should not try to put a static, formal program in place but try

instead to *.. tablish a leadership philosophy and community environment

that will encourage everyone to identify both the issues to be addressed and

creative solutions to them. Simultaneously, the Army must insure that

constant, Army-wie programs (housing, schooling, medical care) are both

properly resourced and well delivered to all members of the community

The Army comm inity of the 'uture must be centered on the concept of

interdependence between the Army and the family, with a responsiility on

the part of the Armv to its members and their families, and a reciprocal

responsibility of servicemembers and their families to the Army. This

interdependence is the capstone that ties together the elements of partnership, adequacy of support, we!lness, and development of a sense of

community. It underscores the fact that it is our Army and if in the

competition for resources higher priorities dictate fewer resources for family

programs, then family members, communities, and the chain of command

must through their own eiforts insure a reciprocity of commitment. It

highlights the role of volunteers working with the chain of command to

develop local nitiatives to promote wellness and a sense of community. If

the Army is to survive as an institution a true partneship must exist. It

cannot become a we/they situaticn; it must be us/US, as in U.S. Army.

The following lays an excellent foundation for a statement of the Army

Family Philosophy: A partnership exists between the Army and Army Fmilies. The

Army's unique missions, concept of service and lifestyle of its

members-all affect the nature of this partnership. Towards the

goal of building a strong partnership, the Army remains committed

to assuring adequate support to families to promote wellness;

develop a sense of community; and strengthen the mutually

reinforcing bonds between the Army and its families.

This Army Family Philosophy gives clarity, direction, and cohesion to

family programs and provides guidance to agencies responsible for developing and implementing those programs. In a larger sense the formal

articulation of an Army Family Philosophy represents a break with the past.

It recognizes that ad hoc programs established on a piecemeal basis that

treat the symptoms but not the causes of family stress are no longer

sufficient. It makes specific that which has been implied. It forms the basis

for a review of existing programs and sets the stage for the development of

an Army Family Action Plan that will provide the roadmap to move us to the

1990's.

16

II
Developing an Army Family Action Plan

Famiiy Advocates Several agencies already exist and have responsibility

for family policy and programs. Advice to policy makers is provided by the

Family Liaison Office located within the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff

for Personnel (DCSPER). fhe Family Liaison Office also facilitates coordination between Army staff elements. The Director of the Human Resources

Directorate is the DCSPER proponent for the A. tamily Program The

Adlutant General is responsible for implementing most existing Army family

support programs. The Surgeon General plans health services support for

families and has a major advisory role for Army fitness The Chief of

Chaplains' Office provides programs in support of religious and moral

development as well as pastoral family member counseling. The Judge

Advocate General's Office oversees legal service programs which affect

family members.

Enhancing Quality uf Life for Famad1cs. The Army's Quality of Life (QOL)

Program directly affects the Army's -bility to man the force and improve

near-term readiness. The QOL Progra'n addresses the Army's obligation to

provide adequate housing, health care, education, pay, facilities maintenance, safe and healthful working conditions, and essential community

morale, welfare, and recreation activities.

We are making steady progress in increasing funding for many of the QOL

Programs which directly affect living and working conditions for soldiers and

family members Funding for our Army Community Services (ACS) Programs

has increased substantially as a result of the growth in new and improved

facilities and services for family members. The Army has programed 14 new

child care centers for construction during fiscal years 1984 and 1985. We

are implementing several new programs such as the Exceptional Family

Member Progiam, Consumer Affairs and Family Advocacy to assist Army

families. In short, we recognize that family support programs must be based

on families' needs.

We are making gains in increasing the amount of Family Housing for

families stationed overseas. Post Exchanges and commissaries are also

programed for increases in facilities construction. We are conducting a

vigorous campaign to build more libraries, chapels, skill development

centers, youth activities centers and bowling alleys with appropriated and

nonappropriated funds.

Your Army leadership is working with the Department of Defense to

ensure that no Army family pays tuition for public schooling for children who

attend school off-post. We are committed to provide quality health care to

soldiers and family members. The number of Army physicians has grown 23

percent from 1978 to 1982. This results in the availability of more physicians

to treat soldiers and family members. The Army Medical Department is

working on several innovative approaches for health care delivery. One

such program is "Family Practice" in which a military physician becomes the

family doctor for specified families. This program has been enthusiastically

received by family members and plans exist to continue to develop more

innovative programs for health care delivery.

17

Ai
Pay and Allowances. Pay is an important factor affecting a soldier's 

V

decision to enlist or reenlist. In recent years, we made progress in

restoring comparability of our soldiers' and, therefore, their families'

purchasing power.

We are advocating increased funds for Permanent Change of Station

(PCS) entitlements to diminish the impact of out-of-pocket costs of families'

moves. These include a proposal to reimburse servicemembers for fees

associated with the sale and purchase of homes and to extend existing tax

relief upon sale of a principal residence when a member is stationed

overseas or occupies Government-provided quarters. The Army supports proposed legislation to fund student travel for families stationed overseas

Likewise, we advocate the passage of legislation to cover storage costs for

automobiles of families assigned to countries which prohibit the importation

of servicemembers' privately owned vehicles. In 1981, Congress authorized

a Temporary Lodging Expense (TLE) for CONUS moves but has not funded

the program. TLE will cover a maximum of 4 days of lodging costs (up to

$110 a day) for a member and family in conjunction with a move from

anywhere to a US duty station, and 2 days for a CONUS to overseas move.

The Army continues io advocate funding of this important legislation.

Other Intiatives. In addition to the aforementioned on-going programs,

the Army is implementing several initiatives designed to promote partnership, wellness, and a sense of community. Our Alcohol and Drug Abuse

Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) has been expanded to

include education, treatment referral, prevention, and intervention for all

family members. The Army's Exceptional Family Member Program will

focus on consideration of exceptional family members' needs during the

assignment process as well as providing health related services Armywide. The Child Care Program is undergoing dynamic change as we work

to upgrade existing facilities, plan for construction of new physical plants,

develop separate career fields for child care professionals and refine job

standards and training. We are developing a sponsorship program for

those personnel newly assigned to or leaving a command. Our Family

Assistance Mobilization Handbook will provide Army Reserve families

with information on how and where to obtain family support services in

the event of mobilization.

The high cost of raising children has not gone unnoticed. An average

American family can expect to spend $226,000 to rear a first-born son to

age 22, or $247,000 for a first-born daughter. With each additional child,

these costs drop as various items are shared. Your Army leadership favors

legislation which would provide for the tansfer of educational benefits from

servicemembers to their children.

At the local level, there are several innovative and exciting programs

working to achieve WELLNESS, PARTNERSHIP, and a SENSE OF COMMUNITY.

Fort Hood has developed programs such as "We Care Days," Unit Family - varenees Programs, and responsive engineer repair teams for quarters

maintenance. Currently, there are 12 mayoral programs in existence on

various CONUS posts. Mayoral programs provide family members with the

opportunity to participate in the managerial decision-making process for

18

- ,4

II
those programs, policies, and procedures which directly affect tneir way of

life, on and off post. Fort Belvoir has established a Spouse Education and

Employment Resources Center in addition to In-Home Child Care Centers.

Fort Bragg's brigade-sponsored on and off post communities program, ana

its handicapped children's activities demonstrate that post's concerns for

partnership and sense of community. To complement military programs,

many civilian personnel offices have established special job counseling,

educational and referral services targeted at family members. Fort Knox

provides welcome and information packets to families, hosts evening

employment seminars and airs weekly "How to apply for Federal employment" films on installation cable T.V. These ongoing programs and initiatives underscore the need for an Army Family Plan which will provide Armywide unity and direction for the Army Family Philosophy in the 1980's.

19

19

tJ /, ," ,,'
The Army Family Plan

The Army is fully committed to supporting families, but we must be

realistic enough to recognize that we will not have unlimited resources as

we develop our plan for the rest of the 1980's. We must avoid the

"shotgun" approach by identifying specific needs and prioritizing them to

ensure that we spend our money where it will make the greatest difference

To do this, the Army must continue to sponsor forums from which we can

receive direct reeponses from family members, and analyze their perceived

problems to identify how they can be met most effiuiently In addition, we

must define areas where research and studies are necessary to target

effectively resources and programs. There is a pressing need for basic

research on the role of Army families and the effect, both positive and

negative, of Army life on those families. While we have made progress in

this area, reliable data are still rare We must have more information on

stress factors, needs of single soldiers witn ch~ldren, ways to build bridges

between heterogeneous family groups, ways to train families for wellness,

and myriad other factors Without this information, we will be groping in the

dark and will never approach the maximum possible level of effectiveness

Once a target list of needs has been developed, we must divide them into

two groups: those that can be addressed with few, if any, additional

resources- and those which will require major expenditures of new resources. The first group of requirements can be met by replicating throughout the Army low cost/high payoff programs that currently exist at individual

installations. At most posts, innovative leaders have developed new methods of employing existing assets to extend the amount of support available

to families. A good example is the assignment of a family support mission at

Fort Bragg to the Rear Detachment commander of the Sinai Peace Keeping

Force. The Rear Detachment commander coordinates support services for

the families of the oversea troops, distributes information from the Sinai

Force, and responds to any unusual situation that affects family members

This type of effort strengthens the bonds between the families and the unit,

provides peace-of-mind for the soldiers in the field, and hel:ps to make the

most efficient use of Fort Bragg's community service resources This

program has had a major impact on the quality of life of the families of the

Sinai Force with a negligible increase in resource requirements. We have to

do a better job of identifying similar low cost, but effective, programs and

implementing them throughout the Army.

Of course, not every legitimate family need can be met by changing the

way we do business at the installation. There are some problems which will

require additional funding, for which we will fight, in spite of tight budgets. In

contrast with the low cost initiatives which deal with assistance to individual

families, most of our high cost requirements are generated by systemic

problems which affect a very large percentage of our soldiers. As noted

earlier, Army families have clearly identified those problems which need to

be addressed. Improved medical and dental care, more and better on- and

off-post housing, a more equitable reimbursement system for expenses

incurred on PCS moves, financial assistance for higher education of our

20
children, and similar issues have been repeatedly cited by family members

as areas where improvement is needed. Most of these problems affect the

basic needs of families. Failure to meet these needs can generate severe

dissatisfaction with Army life. For example, even a young soldier who is

dedicated to the Army may decide not to stay if his or her family must face

continued financial hardship

Responsibility for resolving these issues rests with the Department of the

Army. The solutions require obtaining congressional support for major new

funding. Although difficult, the potential result in improved retention and

readiness is correspondingly great. We must convince the Congress of the

necessity of these programs.

Replicating low cost programs and allocating new resources on high

payoff projects must be priority efforts, but we must also make sure that we

get the most out of what is already available, In the immediate future, there

are two areas which require attention:

1. The structure of the Army family support system Because our family

support system developed piecemeal over the long history of our service,

there is no standard "Family Support System." The services available, and

the system for delivering those services, change from installation to installation. A program which is operated by the Adjutant General at one post may

belong to the Chaplain at a second and the DPCA at a third. As a result,

duplication of effort and confusion exist among consumers. We need to

examine our system. realign functions where required and standardize it so

that everyone knows who to see for help.

2. Policy review. While the support structure is being examined, we will

also review policy in areas with a direct effect on families. The range of

questions to be considered riust include such basic issues as quarteis

clearing procedures; our allocation of resources, such as the percentage of

our family housing units allocated to various grades; as well as major shifts

in direction for our family support system, such as seeking legislation to

allow the Army to employ more volunteers as staff for the Army Community

Services program. In all cases, we must strive to streamline the system to

provide more effective service, and to eliminate "red tape."

The Army recogni7es its responsibility to work with families to promote a

partnership which fosters individual excellence among sponsors and family

members, as well as maximizing their contribution to maintenance of

national security. Simply stated, the Army intends to meet this responsibility

by capitalizing on low cost programs to assist families by promoting

wellness and by building a sense of community, by seeking additional

resources when required to correct major systemic problems, and by

reorganizing our management structure to maximize efficiency (Figure 9).

21

I - -1
Summary

This white paper describes the evolution of the Army family: its history,

present status, and future. It is the first time that information about the Army

family has been systematically gathered and consolidated. In that regard,

this paper is only the first step of our needs assessment. Future months will

be devoted to a contlnuing analysis in needs and the development of

solutions. It will be a time-consuming process; but, given the long history of

the Army family and the piecemeal planning to date, our time will be well

spent. The Army will articulate a well conceived strategic plan for the Army

family.

It is important the Department of the Army proceed to implement and

institutionalize the programs, plans, and other solutions identified through

our needs assessment. However, this plan will not work if it is fed only by

Department of the Army initiatives. Each component of the Army, be it unit,

installation, or activity, and all members of the Army community-active

duty, civilian, reservist, or family member-must understand and embrace

the philosophy articulated in this paper. All need to contribute (o make it a

reality.

This plan envisions family members as true partners in an Army which is

3een as a way of life, not a job. The family responsibility in this partnership is

to support soldiers and employees and participate in building wholesome

communities. The Army's responsibility is to create an environment where

families and family members prosper and realize their potential. Each of us

has a part to play in this partnership.

haECED NG PAGE BLANK-NOT FMIIUD

23