U.S. Army Research Institute

for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

Research Report 1687

MHIIIIE

:

> «f "

.*.„

D. Bruce Bell and Mary L. Stevens

Army Research Institute

19960215 004

Mady W. Segal

University of Maryland

January 1996

rfP*

JÖ**3tf*

tJS$^

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited
U.S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

A Field Operating Agency Under the Jurisdiction

of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

EDGAR M. JOHNSON

Director

Technical review by

Beatrice J. Fair

Joan Harman

NOTICES

DISTRIBUTION: Primary distribution of this report has been made by ARI. Please address correspondence

concerning distribution ofreports to: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences,

ATTN: PERI-POX, 5001 Eisenhower Ave., Alexandria, Virginia 22333-5600.

FINAL DISPOSITION: This report may be destroyed when it is no longer needed. Please do not return it to

the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

NOTE: The findings in this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army position,

unless so designated by other authorized documents.
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved

OMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting bunten for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of mformation. Send c

regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to Washington Headquarters Services. Directorate for information Operations and Reports. 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204. Arlington, VA 22202-4302. and

to the Office of Management and Budget. Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503

1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave Blank) 2. REPORT DATE

January 1996

3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED

Final Mar 94 - Dec 95

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

How to Support Families During Overseas Deployments: A Sourcebook for

Service Providers

6. AUTHOR(S)

Bell, D.B. (ARI), Stevens, M.L. (ARI), & Segal, M.W. (Univ. MD)

5. FUNDING NUMBERS

DASW01-95-K-0005

0603007A 0601102A

A792 B74F

1124 1901

H01 C24

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

U.S Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

ATTN: PERI-RP

5001 Eisenhower Avenue

Alexandria, Virginia 22333-5600

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

5001 Eisenhower Avenue

Alexandria, VA 22333-5600

10. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

Army Research Institute

Research Report 1687

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Contracting Officer's Representative: Dr. Michael Drillings

12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words):

The purpose of this report is to review what is known about family support that can be applied to future Army deployments.

The review is restricted to units of at least 150 service members that have deployed for at least a six month period since

1980.

The Army's current installation-level support system for the Active Component (AC) has been fairly stable since 1990. The

support system for AC battalions is highly dependent upon volunteers and thus varies by the numbers, talents, and interests

of those who participate in it. Reserve Component (RC) families are fairly similar to AC families in the problems they

experience and they use friends and relatives to handle most difficulties they encounter. They are more likely to use local

Army assets (e.g., CHAMPUS, Family Support Groups, and local Army units) than to use military installation-based

services (probably because of the distances involved in visiting such services). All RC literature we located suggested that

family dispersion made the delivery of family services difficult.

The report also contains suggestions on how to improve the operation of family support systems, particularly those at the

battalion level and below.

14. SUBJECT TERMS

Family Support Groups

Family adaptation

Family agencies

Rear Detachment

Deployments

Family separation

Peacekeeping

15. NUMBER OF PAGES

60

16. PRICE CODE

17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF REPORT

Unclassified

18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF

THIS PAGE

Unclassified

19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF

ABSTRACT

Unclassified

20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT

Unlimited

NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev 2-89)

Prescribed by ANSI Std 239-18 298-102
Blank Pages
Research Report 1687

How to Support Families

During Overseas Deployments:

A Sourcebook for Service Providers

D. Bruce Bell and Mary L. Stevens

Army Research Institute

Mady W. Segal

University of Maryland

Multinational Force and Observers Task Force

Ruth H. Phelps, Leader

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22333-5600

Office, Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

Department of the Army

January 1996

Army Project Number Manpower and Personnel

2O363007A792

Approved for public release; distribution Is unlimited.
FOREWORD

The U.S. Army Research Institute's (ARI's) Army Family Research Program (1986-

1992) clearly showed how important good family adaptation to Army life was to the retention

and performance of married soldiers. ARI did further research into the antecedents and

consequences of good family adaptation of both soldiers and spouses during Operations

Desert Shield and Desert Storm and Operation Restore Hope in Somalia, and with the soldiers

of the 10th Mountain Division deployed to Haiti and the 28th rotation of the Multinational

Force and Observers (MFO) in the Sinai.

The present report provides "lessons learned" from prior deployments of Active and

Reserve Component (AC and RC) soldiers that can be used during future deployments to

improve the working of family support systems for installations and for battalion- and

company-size units.

Advanced (draft) copies of this report are being used by units deployed as

peacekeepers in Bosnia as part of Operation Joint Endeavor.

ZJTA M. SIMUTIS EDGAR A. JOHNSON

Deputy Director Director

(Science and Technology)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors wish to express their appreciation to the ARI scientists and administrators

who provided reviews and comments on earlier drafts of this report: Drs. Paul Gade, Ruth

Phelps, Beatrice Farr, Joan Harman, LTC Kurt Lagenwalter, Ms. Genie Payne, Ms. Michelle

Schuman, Ms. Rose Rice, and Ms. Torrie Pharr. We also received editorial help from Mrs.

Beverly Bell. All of them helped us make the draft better. We appreciate the help of Mr.

Richard Howard of the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, Washington, DC, and Ms.

Donna Fairbrother of Caliber Associates, Fairfax, Virginia, who helped us assemble the

research reports that made this review possible. We also appreciate Dr. James Martin, Bryn

Mawr College and Dr. Steven Burk, Military Family Institute at Marywood College, for their

help with Appendix B.

We would also like to thank the soldiers, spouses, and service providers who helped

us with our family research by filling out our questionnaires, giving us interviews, and/or

allowing us to observe their operations during Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm,

Operation Restore Hope, and the Multinational Force and Observers rotations 1, 7, 25, 26,

and 28. We would also like to acknowledge the help we received from the National Guard

Bureau and National Guard units that we interviewed during Operations Desert Shield and

Desert Storm and "Caminos Fuertes" (Strong Roads) in Central America.

VI
HOW TO SUPPORT FAMILIES DURING OVERSEAS DEPLOYMENTS:

SOURCEBOOK FOR SERVICE PROVIDERS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Research Requirement:

The purpose of this report is to review what is known about family support that can be

applied to overseas deployments. It was written as part of our family research in support of

an Army experiment to test the feasibility and desirability of using Reserve Component (RC)

soldiers as peacekeepers in the Sinai desert.

Procedure:

The research reviewed here is restricted to overseas deployments since 1980 that have

involved at least 150 individuals and have lasted six months or longer. Most of the

information comes from 46 military family support reports. Most of these were generated by

military family researchers. Whenever possible, that information is supplemented by ARI

interviews from Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm (ODS/S), Operation Restore

Hope, and visits to units that had deployed to the Multinational Force and Observers (MFO)

in the Sinai or as part of six-month National Guard training missions to Central America.

One major source is a report generated by the U.S. Army War College entitled: Who

Cares? We Do!! (U.S. Army War College, 1992). It relied heavily on the experiences of

military spouses who worked in various parts of the family support system during Operation

Just Cause, ODS/S, and many major peacetime deployments.

Findings:

The support system for families during deployments has evolved considerably over the

last 200 years. The current system, which could be seen during our first MFO rotations to

the Sinai in 1982, is built upon the notion that supporting Army families is not only the right

thing to do but is also in the best interest of the Army.

The overall family support system is actually three interlocking support systems:

installation services, unit services, and what the families do for themselves and for others.

The goal of these systems is to prevent problems, quickly solve those problems that do arise,

and to help families improve their ability to function in future deployments.

Data from ODS/S clearly show that families are able to meet the demands of daily

living. However, they often experience emotional symptoms which tend to diminish as the

deployment proceeds. Most spouses found it easy to reunite the family once the soldier

returned. But about 20% of families were not "back to normal" seven months after ODS/S

had ended. Marital satisfaction dropped for both soldiers and spouses but the number of

divorces did not increase.

Vll
The technology for improving the family support system already exists in the form of

training and resource materials. The biggest challenge that remains is how to evaluate the

effectiveness of these materials and to deliver them in a timely fashion to the individuals who

will operate the unit-based systems in future deployments. The main problem in delivering

the materials is that many of these individuals will not be identified nor be motivated to

receive the materials until after the deployment has begun.

Utilization of Findings:

This report brings together findings from AC and RC, Army and other services

covering the last 15 years. Although its intended audience is practitioners at installation level

and below, it contains facts and recommendations that should be useful to program mangers

at all levels. This report is being used by various Army headquarters and volunteer and

professional family support personnel as part of the U.S. Army peacekeeping deployment to

Bosnia. The following commands and agencies also requested a total of 3,000 copies of the

final report for distribution to the individuals and agencies they support: the DoD Quality of

Life Office, U.S. Army Europe and 7th Army, National Guard Bureau, U.S. Army

Community and Family Support Command, Army Forces Command, Army Family Liaison

Office, and the U.S. Army Chaplains' Support Agency.

Vlll
HOW TO SUPPORT FAMILIES DURING OVERSEAS DEPLOYMENTS: A

SOURCEBOOK FOR SERVICE PROVIDERS

CONTENTS

Page

Introduction 1

The family support system at battalion level and below 3

Family support groups 3

The rear detachment . 14

The deployed unit 17

The family support system at installation level 18

Early MFO rotations 18

Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm (ODS/S) 19

Operation Restore Hope in Somalia 21

The nature of deployment 21

How deployments affect families 21

How families cope 23

Reunion issues 27

How to improve the family support system 28

Prevention 29

Assistance during the deployment 30

Doing better in the future 30

Conclusions 31

References 33

APPENDIX A: Family support programs and source materials A-l

B: Families that do not adapt well to deployments B-l

C: Recent research on family support during deployments C-l

IX
HOW TO SUPPORT FAMILIES DURING OVERSEAS DEPLOYMENTS:

A SOURCEBOOK FOR SERVICE PROVIDERS

INTRODUCTION

During the Revolutionary War, the families of our soldiers often functioned as support

troops in exchange for pay in the form of half rations for wives and quarter rations for

children. Since this early "partnership" between the Army and its families, the family support

system has evolved considerably (Bell and Iadeluca, 1987).

In modern notions of partnership, the Army recognizes that it is not only the "right"

thing to support families, but that it is also in the Army's best interest to be concerned about

families. Family perceptions about the desirability of continuing in Army life and their

attitudes about Army leaders have a demonstrable effect on soldier retention, morale, and

some aspects of combat performance (Albano, 1994; Army Chief of Staff, 1983; Bell and

Iadeluca, 1987; Bell, Schumm, Elig, Palmer-Johnson, and Tisak, 1993; Schumm, Bell, Knott,

and Ender, 1995; Segal and Harris, 1993).

The changing relationship between the Army and its families has been matched by

changes in Army family support systems. The "classic" Army post is designed to serve a

single Army Division (i.e., about 14,000 to 16,000 soldiers in addition to their families).

Family services have evolved to the extent that the typical post will provide family housing,

medical care, counseling, childcare, budget counseling, financial planning, and a host of other

services to the soldiers and to their family members who, on most posts, outnumber the

soldiers. It is these installation-level services which most people equate with the phrase "the

family support system."

However, there is a second family support system that operates closer to where the

soldiers work and live. This is the unit-based system that operates in most instances at the

battalion level (500 to 700 soldiers) and below, which consists of three parts: the unit

leadership, the Family Support Group (FSG), and the unit Rear Detachment (RD). Each of

these elements will be further described and defined shortly. The point here is that a second

system exists that provides needed family services—particularly when the unit deploys (i.e.,

moves as a group to a new location to fulfill a specified task or mission).

The current family support system that operates during the deployment of a division

(which in most cases would mean the entire post) or a smaller unit (typically a battalion or

battalion-size task force) combines both the installation and battalion support systems.

Deployment of a unit or an entire post produces additional strains for the families

involved. The families may need additional psychological or material resources because the

soldier is absent (e.g., childcare, money, companionship, information about the Army or the

mission the troops are being asked to fulfill). These family needs may be met through

military actions and agencies or through the third family support system: the families' own

interpersonal resources (e.g., friends and relatives).
The purpose of this report is to describe these changes in needs and resource

utilization during deployments using available professional literature. Our primary interest is

how these mechanisms work at installations and within small units (i.e., battalion and below).

The primary audience for this report consists of those who operate (or train the operators of)

family support systems at the small unit level.1

The research reviewed here is restricted to overseas deployments between 1980 and

the present that involved at least 150 individuals and lasted six or more months. Most of the

information comes from 46 military family support reports. Whenever possible, that

information is supplemented by Army Research Institute (ARI) interviews from Operations

Desert Shield and Desert Storm (ODS/S), Operation Restore Hope (ORH), and visits to units

that had deployed to the MFO or as part of six month National Guard (NG) training missions

to Central America called "Caminos Fuertes" (Strong Roads). We have also included a

section of reports on how the families of reserve component (RC) personnel in the Army,

Navy, and Marine Corps fared during ODS/S.

One of the best sources of information about both installation and unit-based family

services during a deployment is the report generated by the U.S. Army War College (AWC)

entitled: Who Cares? We Do!! (U.S. Army War College, 1992). The report is the result of a

conference involving both paid Army staff and spouse volunteers who helped operate family

support systems in units that were involved in Operation Just Cause, ODS/S, and many major

peacetime deployments. The proceedings of that conference and other materials in the report

are summarized in this paper to provide a concrete picture of the way these systems function.

Although we have assembled this information, we do not have all the answers. As the

reader will see, we know more about the problems than we do about how to correct them.

Even when we offer a potential solution, it has not been subjected to adequate evaluation. It

is our hope that this report will spur all of us to do more to sort out what the family support

system should be doing and how best to improve it.

Our research charter originally came from the then Army Chief of Staff, General

Gordon R. Sullivan. We have recently examined the family support system that was operated

for the soldiers and families of the 4-505 Parachute Infantry Regiment from Fort Bragg,

North Carolina. The unit was deployed to the Sinai from January through July of 1995 for

peacekeeping duty as part of the Multinational Force and Observers (MFO). This was a

composite unit, made up of soldiers from both the Active (20%) and Reserve (80%)

Components (AC and RC). It was a battalion-size task force which was brought together to

test the effectiveness and consequences of having RC soldiers participating in future MFO

rotations. This unit was unique and interesting since it was composed of soldiers from 33

states, including married soldiers whose spouses lived in 31 states. It gave us a chance to

look at family support in both the AC and RC and to offer suggestions for how such a

Examples of the people we want to reach include: Company and battalion commanders,

chaplains, mental health professionals, installation directors of Army Community Service

programs, and the individuals who train Family Support Group leaders.
distributed support system might operate if the Army were to participate in any future

peacekeeping missions drawing both AC and RC forces from a widely distributed area.

Senior Army leaders have a continuing interest in family support issues, particularly as

they pertain to the needs of families of soldiers who are deployed for peacekeeping duty

because of the continued need for large scale Army deployments. Therefore, this paper

begins with the support systems that are present in battalion- or company-size units,

specifically, the FSGs, RDs, and the support operations of the deployed unit. The second

section examines the installation-level support mechanisms that were in place during three

recent missions: the MFO, ODS/S and ORH in Somalia. The third section covers the nature

of deployments: how they affect families, how the families cope and what the special

problems of deployment are. The fourth section provides specific suggestions for how to

improve family support during deployments. The final section is the "Conclusions" section.

The report also contains three appendices. Appendix A, "Family support programs and source

materials," provides practical advice for people who plan or operate some portion of the

family support system. Appendix B, "Families that do not adapt well to deployments,"

provides some insights into the types of behaviors which are not helpful in dealing with

deployments and how FSG leaders can better help families to cope. Appendix C, "Recent

research on family support during deployments," provides sources for people in the military

family research community.

THE FAMILY SUPPORT SYSTEM AT BATTALION LEVEL AND BELOW

The family support system which operates at the battalion level and below during

deployments has three major parts: the Family Support Group (FSG), the unit's Rear

Detachment (RD), and the support resources within the deployed unit itself. Each of these

parts is described below.

Family Support Groups

The Family Support Group is an officially sanctioned voluntary association of Army

family members who join together to provide social and emotional support to one another. It

also "brokers" information during deployments. An Army regulation requires that every unit

commander provide support for the families within the unit and that he/she organize an FSG

to assist in this function.2 Although spouse support has existed in a variety of forms, FSGs

have historically been tied to specific Army units. During ODS/S, the National Guard found

that it was often more convenient for the families to associate themselves with whatever FSG

or equivalent group was meeting in their area. Thus, there are many regional FSGs in the

National Guard.

2

For a list of Army Regulations and materials related to setting up family support systems

at the Battalion level and below see Appendix A of this report: Family Support Programs and

Source Materials. The materials in that appendix that most directly deal with the authority to

perform the family support mission are: Department of the Army Pamphlet 608-47 (1993);

Emper and Varcoe (1995); the U.S. Army Family Liaison Office (1995) resource booklet; and

U.S. Army Regulation 600-20, Army Command Responsibility.
The literature generally identified two types of FSG group functions: those which

serve families and those which sustain the group. The "mission" functions are: organizing

social events, holding informational meetings, maintaining phone circles (trees), and

publishing newsletters. The "sustainment" functions are: selecting the FSG leader, starting

(re-energizing) an FSG, avoiding leader "burnout," recruiting and keeping volunteers, fund

raising, and assigning roles within the FSGs.

Organizing social/informational events.

3

The participants at the AWC conference (U.S. Army War College, 1992) agreed about

how to hold successful FSG functions: make the meetings interesting, short, and predictable

(e.g., hold them at the same location, time, and day). However, they disagreed about what to

do about children. Some participants suggested having alternating meetings: one focused on

children's activities and one for adults only.4 Other participants thought that all meetings

should be family-oriented (i.e., have activities that had something of interest to everyone).

FSG activities can be classified on the basis of the goals they are trying to accomplish.

Some events or meetings are mainly social (to provide a diversion); some aim to increase

participants' fund of information or coping skills; and some try to meet emotional needs.

Although these purposes are listed as separate topics, a given FSG meeting may combine

more than one of them (e.g., a potluck dinner followed by a briefing on what is going on in

the deployed unit). Some FSG activities are appropriate for any time in the unit's life.

Others are specifically designed to fit the deployment cycle: sustainment (when the soldiers

are in garrison), pre-deployment (when the soldiers are about deploy), deployment, and

reunion (when the soldiers come back).

General social events. Examples of social events which could be staged under all

deployment conditions are food events and seasonal parties. Examples of events tied to food

include: a potluck dinner that has a different food theme each month (e.g., Mexican, Chinese,

or Southern cooking), a picnic, and compiling a unit cookbook. The FSG may want to hold

recreational events (e.g., Softball, skating, or bowling) or the members may prefer a formal

3Most research (and many social function planners) focuses on the prototypical family:

the male soldier and his wife. However, particularly during a dangerous deployment other

family members will emerge: male spouses, parents, and girl/boyfriends. FSGs should be

prepared for all of these family members and be thinking of activities that will make them

feel welcome and needed. Likewise, FSG leaders should be sensitive to multi-cultural aspects

of Army families. We all need to think about how our family support functions can support

all unit family members. So if the FSG chooses to concentrate on, for example, having

prayer breakfasts (U.S. Army War College, 1992), it needs to be thinking about the needs of

those who do not choose to attend some types of functions.

^his type of meeting requires that the children be left at home or that the FSG provide

supervised childcare or children's activities in a separate room so that the adults can go about

their own activities without interruptions.
dinner, bingo, or a unit party. A number of possibilities revolve around seasonal parties (e.g.,

Halloween, Christmas, and Easter egg hunts for children).

Social events during the deployment. Most of the events discussed in the 1992 AWC

report occurred during ODS/S. For example, FSGs met during the Christmas season to make

decorations, sign personalized cards, or stuff donated stockings to send to the troops in Saudi

Arabia. Some FSGs also sent birthday cookies to the soldiers during their birth months.

Another popular event involves exchanging videotapes. FSGs staged carol-singing events,

Thanksgiving dinners, and parties which they videotaped and sent to the troops. The unit

chaplains in Saudi Arabia often videotaped the deployed soldiers and sent the tapes back to

the FSGs. Individual spouses brought in tapes that their soldiers made to share with their

own FSG. Other FSGs videotaped news events featuring their units and made copies

available to FSG members. Members also shared with each other the news that they got via

letters or phone calls.

FSG members in ODS/S and other deployments have been interested in seeing and

hearing from the troops. For instance, a National Guard unit reported that they had a very

successful meeting when they featured a slide show done by a returning chaplain. He had

taken pictures of the unit and the camp they used while on a six-month road building mission

to Central America (i.e., "Caminos Fuertes"). The unit also had great success with weekly

Sunday afternoon conference calls between the unit and spouses who were willing to come to

the local armory and to help with the FSG newsletter. Calls made by FSG leaders and

volunteers to unit spouses who were celebrating wedding anniversaries or birthdays during

this deployment were also well received.5

Social events for reunion or homecoming. The AWC report is also full of ideas for

celebrating the homecoming of the ODS/S troops. Groups made signs, banners, and baked

goods. FSGs decorated the unit areas and even made the beds for the single soldiers in the

barracks. Some units had parties or picnics to welcome the troops home. Local merchants

sometimes assisted with these events by donating food. Units also used the "welcome home"

party to acknowledge the support they received from unit volunteers.

Informational meetings.

One ODS/S unit took a direct approach to getting information. Rather than attending

a post briefing on what was happening to the unit in Saudi Arabia, they brought the briefer to

their meeting and videotaped his talk for those who could not attend. Some FSGs invited one

or more of the local Army agencies to talk about their deployment programs. A variation on

this idea was to have a chaplain or mental health professional discuss what waiting spouses

5For more information on this award winning program call or write:

Mrs. Linda Crawford, 3596 Tanglewood Trail, Clemmons, NC 27012, (910) 766-8073.
were likely to encounter during a deployment or the reunion period.6 Although the ODS/S

spouses were especially receptive to meetings that focused on deployment, some FSGs have

had meetings that focus on other topics (e.g., how to get a job, volunteer to help on post, or

learn to cook).

The AWC report also discusses a special kind of informational meeting: one which

deals with a crisis during the deployment. If a crisis occurs, the AWC conference participants

urge FSG leaders to arrange for a meeting within twenty-four hours to answer questions and

allow people to vent their feelings. The AWC report also suggests a follow-up meeting

where professionals are present to deal with feelings and make other services available.

Maintaining phone circles (trees).

The two most common systems for rapid dispersement of family information during

deployments are "phone trees" and "phone circles." A phone tree is a hierarchal system that

requires people at one level (e.g., the company) to call people at the next level (e.g., the

platoon) before individual families are contacted. A phone circle operates with fewer people

who are required to call more individuals. For example, a battalion might have eight

volunteers each of whom called up to 20 individuals in their circle. The advantage here is

that although each volunteer calls more people there is no layering. If all eight volunteers

have been called, all of the battalion will be called.

These phone trees/circles are normally active only during deployments. However,

some units use them to "check in" with the families (at least quarterly) and to invite them to

various unit functions. In either case, the phone calls may reveal family problems which can

be solved within or outside of the unit (U.S. Army War College, 1992).

Phones can also be a great help in dispelling rumors by quickly countering erroneous

information. The AWC report states that effective and accurate management is best

accomplished if: (1) there is a single point of contact (POC) who is in charge of what

information the phone tree will disseminate; (2) everyone knows in advance that the phone

system will only transmit official (verified) information; and (3) the phone contact people are

properly trained and agree not to gossip or spread rumors. Even with these precautions, the

phone system can spread incorrect information. Official information tends to be censored (for

security reasons) and therefore may lag well behind what is really happening and being

transmitted from soldier to spouse via long distance phone calls (Bell, 1991).

The AWC report shows other limitations of running the phone tree/circle. Units in

Germany found that families living on that country's inflated economy often did not have

phones. The AWC report suggests that this difficulty can be overcome if soldiers or family

members are willing to visit families without phones to keep them informed. The same

6

Small discussion groups are suggested, using the most experienced unit spouses as the

"experts." The sessions seem to work best if the size of each group is kept under 10 or 12

individuals, and the social distance is not too great between the experienced spouse and the

attendees.
solution may work for those families that disconnect their phones to save money while the

soldier is deployed (or whose phones are disconnected because they have not been able to pay

their bills). FSG volunteers also complain about the cost of making telephone calls from their

homes. German telephones charge for local calls and even in the United States there is often

a toll charge for calling from one off post area to another.

A second frequently mentioned issue in the AWC report was that families may leave

the post area during deployments, often without notifying the FSG. The suggested solution

was for the unit to identify as many of these "relocating" families as possible during the

Preparation for Overseas Movement and to determine: (1) their new addresses and phone

numbers, (2) if they want to be kept informed, and (3) their willingness to accept "collect

calls" from the FSG representative if necessary.7Some units used conference calls for these

distant families to help cut the burden on the callers and standardize the message that was

being delivered.

Several alternative ways of handling telephone information were mentioned by the

AWC spouses. One group used a phone bank located at the brigade headquarters which made

calls to all brigade spouses. They passed along needed information and had a computerassisted tracking system that allowed them to record any family problems encountered and

track how they were being resolved. Another unit's approach to this system was putting the

latest information about the deployment on its RD's answering machine, making it available

on a 24-hour-a-day basis.

Publishing newsletters.

The feature of a newsletter that most interests family members is information about

what is happening to the unit and when the soldiers will return. These articles are typically

written by someone deployed and then mailed back to the RD or FSG for publication.

Soldiers may also add other materials for publication (e.g., short notes to their families,

poetry, etc.). Regulations authorize a newsletter to be produced and mailed at government

expense.8 During sustainment periods, the newsletter is often produced by the battalion staff

and contains such news as births, awards, promotions, or relocations. It also may list other

events, such as where and when the FSG will hold its next meeting.

7The FSG volunteer can make the calls at no charge if they use government telephones.

However, it is not always possible for the volunteer to do that if they live some distance from

the post or need to use their home telephones so that can keep their own families going while

helping out the FSG.

8For details see page 6 of Department of the Army Pamphlet 608-47 (1993). For a list of

relevant Army Regulations see U.S. Army Family Liaison Office, 1995.
Some ODS/S era units hand-delivered copies of their newsletters and their family

support handbooks9to all new spouses as a way of welcoming them to the unit. In Europe,

the Non-combatant Evacuation Operations wardens (i.e., the officers who were responsible for

helping families leave Europe if war broke out) often discovered family problems as they

hand delivered the unit newsletters to the homes of families living off post (U.S. Army War

College, 1992).

One of the biggest problems with newsletter delivery was (and continues to be) the

lack of current addresses. The only solution to the address problem seems to be making

frequent updates of rosters prior to deployment, and having the soldiers update their families'

addresses during the deployment. A second problem mentioned was that because newsletters

were delivered as bulk mail, the FSG leaders could not tell whether or not they were

delivered.

Several other printed items were suggested by the AWC spouses as supplements to the

monthly newsletter. A bulletin board in the battalion area, or in the Family Assistance

Center, for displaying the unit newsletter, photos from the unit, and other items of interest

would provide further means of information dissemination. Other printed materials were

mailed with the newsletter or displayed on the bulletin board (e.g., flyers of upcoming events,

and "news flashes" that described unit news or events that happened too late to get into the

newsletter). During ODS/S local civilian and post newspapers often made regularly scheduled

space available for reporting what was happening in the deployed unit and on the home front.

Whether this same offer would be made during more routine deployments is not clear;

however, FSG representatives can request such space.

Selecting FSG leaders.

An ODS/S survey in Europe looked at the leader selection process for the FSGs

(Vaitkus and Johnson, 1991). Most (59%) leaders of battalion-level FSGs said that they

assumed their position by virtue of their husbands' positions; 37% said that they volunteered;

and only 5% said that they were elected. The story is essentially the same for those leading

company-level FSGs (i.e., the percentages were 59%, 29%, and 12%, respectively). Although

it is common to have the commander's spouse as the head of the FSG, AWC spouses agreed

with what researchers have repeatedly shown: it is better to have someone who has the talent

and desire to do the job than someone who feels forced to serve due to something beyond

her/his control (i.e., spouse's rank). If the commander's spouse does not want to lead, she/he

9

Several of the MFO rotations created their own unit orientation- and deployment-relevant

handbooks for families to use during deployment. For a complete list of sources for writing

or assembling such a handbook and handling other family support functions see appendix A:

Family Support Programs and Source Materials. Other sources of information include: Army

Family Liaison Office, 1995; Emper and Varcoe, 1995; and Winneke, 1991.

8
can serve a valuable role as an advisor, motivator, and troubleshooter.10

In fact, research

shows that FSGs are more successful if they are operated in a democratic rather than rankdriven fashion (Rosen, Teitelbaum, and Westhuis, 1993).

According to the AWC report, the characteristics of a good FSG leader include: good

interpersonal skills, being approachable, not prone to gossip, ability to demonstrate true

concern for families, and a willingness to work as a peer alongside everyone else. These

skills will be essential if there are key individuals who volunteer to help the FSG but who do

not get along with each other.

Starting (or Re-Energizing) FSGs.

Regardless of how one assumes the leadership position, she/he is quickly confronted

with the question of what the FSG will look like and how it will function. It is generally

agreed that the leader must understand what the commander wants. Beyond that, the AWC

spouses are divided about how much change to introduce. Some say that stability is critical

and therefore one should leave everything alone. Others urge the leader to "make it her/his

own." Still others suggest leaving the structure and workings as they are for a time, seeing

how they work before making any decisions about changes.

Those who hold the idea that change is necessary emphasize that leaders will have

more fun, commitment, and success if they are doing what they believe in rather than being

pale copies of their predecessors. They go on to suggest that if something does not work or

is not really needed, drop it. When making changes, previous FSG leaders suggest to start

small, be realistic, and learn what did or did not work in this unit before the change in

leadership. During sustainment, low attendance at meetings is generally expected.

Moreover, it becomes essential to form a plan before deployment outlining who will do what,

when, and how. For example, what will be done if there is a death in the unit?

When assessing how the FSG was previously run, leaders stress keeping in mind what

the group wants and is willing to support. Also, FSG leaders should get to know the families

10A battalion commander's spouse has certain built-in advantages if she/he assumes the

job of FSG leader. She/he has easy access to the commander, clout within the unit and

division, years of experience with the military and deployments (and therefore the potential to

offer valuable advice), and a good starting point for helping all of the companies.

Furthermore, she/he sets an example for the other spouses by virtue of her/his position. If

she/he is not involved in the FSG, many other spouses may feel that they do not need to help

either. Therefore, if someone else is the battalion FSG leader, that individual will need help

in obtaining the status needed to function effectively.

It is also important for the battalion commander's spouse (or other senior spouse) to

realize that she/he must not attempt to shift roles, going from advisor to leader and back

again. The group may sometimes choose to go against a senior spouse's advice. If that

happens, she/he has to be prepared to live with that decision. It does not help the group if

the senior spouse tries to force the group to go her/his way as if she/he were the group's

leader.
to determine their needs. Other suggestions include: learning their names, learning who their

children are, and letting others share in the planning, work, and rewards. A successful FSG

(rather than an officers' wives club) includes involving enlisted spouses. Often, the key to

this is participation by the Command Sergeant Major's (CSM's) spouse (U.S. Army War

College, 1992). The spouses of other high ranking NCOs can also be very helpful. What is

more important is making all spouses, regardless of the soldier's rank, feel welcome and a

part of the group.

The FSG leader should also learn about the "community" outside the FSG to

determine who can help with problems after duty hours, what service agencies exist and what

their strengths are, and to whom families can go. The unit staff (e.g., the CSM, chaplain, and

S-l) can help, but one must remember that they work for the commander and have many

priorities that have nothing to do with family support issues.

Being the FSG leader is not a permanent job. The more the leader does for the unit,

the less able the group will be to function when the leader leaves. The FSG will need a good

"after-action report:" What works, what does not work and what resources are available (U.S.

Army War College, 1992).

Avoiding leader "burnout."

ARI interviews with FSG leaders and family service providers during ODS/S

suggested that some FSG leaders were having a difficult time meeting the family support

demands they were encountering. This complaint was particularly strong at one installation in

the United States which had only one RD for the entire post (Oliver and Bell, 1991).

Vaitkus and Johnson (1991) conducted their research in Europe. They found that

almost half of the battalion- and company-level FSG leaders began their jobs with the FSG

after the start of ODS/S. Most (85% of the battalion- and 61% of the company-level) FSG

leaders reported that they worked more than five hours a week for the group. Furthermore,

76% and 46% of the battalion- and company-level leaders felt that FSG activities interfered

"a fair amount" or "a lot" with their personal lives. Yet, only 15% and 18% of these ODS/S

era leaders felt "frequently burned out" by FSG demands. The secret seemed to be that they

felt that what they were doing was important. In fact, 80% and 90% of the battalion- and

company-level leaders said that they at least "somewhat" enjoyed their role as FSG leader.

Specific suggestions on how to avoid burnout were offered by the AWC spouses and

the leaders of FSGs at Fort Drum during ORH (Bell and Teitelbaum, 1993): Take care of

yourself physically and mentally; eat, sleep, and exercise regularly. Spend time with your

own family. If the pressure becomes too great, put the answering machine on, and leave the

house. An alternative strategy may be to set limits on what one is willing to do for the unit

and its families. One way to do that is not to try to solve problems that the Army should be

solving: refer them to appropriate Army channels. Other suggestions include: referring

serious family problems to Army agencies, delegating work within the FSG to those who can

and will handle it, giving out the RD number or the number of their phone contact person

rather than the leader's own number. This should lessen some of the phone burden and give

10
everyone more choice about what issues to get involved with. Appendix B describes the

types of families that do not adjust well to deployments and what can be done about them.

The AWC report also recommended dealing promptly with trouble makers and those

who spread rumors and dissension to prevent the situation from getting worse than it already

is. The leader and FSG need to remember that no one is perfect and to forgive and forget

quickly. Finally, the meetings should avoid being too serious. For instance, it may help

reduce tension to start the FSG meeting with an ice-breaker such as determining who has the

most unusual object in handbags or pockets.

Recruiting and keeping volunteers.

Previous FSG leaders suggested when recruiting people for the FSG: (1) limit the

demands placed on an individual, remembering that they also have families, (2) use people to

do what they like and are good at, (3) have a pro-family atmosphere, and (4) actively involve

enlisted families. Once recruited, volunteers need clear role expectations. They may be

written down in a job description along with other pertinent information about the job.

Researchers report that despite Army efforts to make needed training and resource materials

available, those involved in running FSGs (or at least a portion of them) have often been

unable to avail themselves of these resources (Bell, D.B., Teitelbaum, J.M., and Schumm,

W.R., in press).

Keeping volunteers and helping them to be productive requires that the leaders have

"people skills." They must show their appreciation for the volunteers' efforts, particularly

through public functions. They must be able to get along with a variety of personalities to

get the work of the FSG accomplished. Leaders must also be able to size up what the

volunteers can and cannot do. If a volunteer lacks people skills, use her/him on the unit

newsletter rather than for telephone duty. Also, do not be afraid to dismiss volunteers if they

spread rumors or otherwise hurt the overall support effort.

Volunteers may need to be trained on how to: conduct phone contacts, handle crisis

calls on a 24-hour hotline, and find resources for the families. Having volunteers help with a

local civilian hotline before the unit deploys can be helpful in accomplishing this end.

Fund raising.

AWC spouses talked a lot about how they spent the money that they raised:

subsidizing the cost of outings, paying for respite childcare ("mother's day out"), decorations

for parties, etc. They were less expansive about what they did to raise the funds. The most

popular approaches mentioned were the sale of commemorative pins, hats, and t-shirts; bake

sales; and car washes. Other suggestions included writing and selling a unit cookbook and

raffling chances to predict the date the soldiers would return.

Structuring the FSGs.

It is difficult to describe exactly what an FSG looks like because in many important

ways they are all different. Furthermore, the groups are constantly changing as a function of

11
turnover in leaders, people who are willing to help keep the FSG going, and other potential

FSG members, and the needs of the unit. It is possible, however, to describe the types of

FSGs that we have seen, and (where possible) comment upon how effective they were.11

Remember that FSGs can also be combinations of these types.

The Chain of Concern Organization. This type of FSG exists primarily during

deployments at company level or below. It may come into being shortly before or after the

deployment begins or it may evolve out of (or be a part of) one of the other FSG structures.

Its main function is to transmit information that it gathers from a reliable source such as the

head of the battalion-level FSG. The most typical method of transmitting the information is

via telephone to segments of the unit. It may expand its operations to cover: visits to the

soldiers' families who are out of town, calls to "check on how family members are," and

feedback to the leaders of the FSG and others on the presence of unmet family needs.

The Battalion Steering Committee. The head of the Battalion FSG, the Battalion

Commander's spouse or other capable volunteer (usually some spouse of a senior officer or

command sergeant major) acts as an interface for whatever is happening at the installation.

For example, she/he attends the senior spouse council meetings and passes on relevant

information to the company FSGs.

The Battalion FSG leader also chairs a committee which represents both the battalion

and the companies or batteries within it. When the battalion is not deployed, the committee's

main functions are to plan battalion social events and to discuss family support needs. It may

also be augmented by leaders such as the battalion commander, CSM, battalion chaplain, and

battalion S-l. The committee may act as the catalyst in preparing for deployments by

recruiting volunteers, publishing a battalion newsletter, and keeping rosters up to date.

During the sustainment period, these committees may be quite informal and quite social in

nature.

During deployments, the steering committee may add new functions or strengthen

existing ones. It may start publishing a newsletter, add a second monthly meeting which is

open to all of the battalion's family members, and/or encourage the companies to have

meetings. The committee may take responsibility for operating the phone circle/tree or assist

the companies in getting the help they need to perform this function.

Some steering committees tend to be formally organized, each member having a title

and a position of trust. Although no single steering committee would have all of these

volunteers and thus positions, we have seen the following: chairman (or president), advisor,

company representative(s), secretary, treasurer, baby layette coordinator, newsletter editor,

child care coordinator, hospitality person, and head of the telephone contact committee.

Some steering committees have been able to add professional staff. For example, one

FSG had two paid, full-time staff members who handled telephone contacts and social

"For a more complete discussion of the types of FSGs that can exist and their functions

see Headquarters, Department of the Army (1993).

12
invitations. Such help would obviously be welcomed by an over-stressed FSG leader.

However, researchers have very little data on how this type of system is viewed by the FSG

members.

The Regional Family Support Group. This FSG is organized around the needs of

military families who live in the same geographical area. For example, an RC unit based in

Arizona might refer to its family support system as being the FSGs in Phoenix, Tucson, and

Fort Huachuca. The family members would be free to join any of these regional groups —

not just the one that was closest to them or the unit that their soldier served in. In fact, many

families during ODS/S attended the closest FSG regardless of which service was sponsoring

it.12

A non-volunteer FSG. Some units choose to operate without a FSG. Instead, the

function is fulfilled by one or more professionals. For example, one National Guard unit

during Caminos Feuetes used a task force of soldiers located at the state headquarters to staff

a toll-free phone and a toll-free beeper that was operated 24 hours a day, seven days a week

to assist families (Bell, Segal and Rice, 1995). One Fort Drum unit used the commander's

civilian secretary during ORH to provide up to date information to family members during

duty hours (Bell and Teitelbaum, 1993). The 1992 AWC report also mentions having units

covered by staff officers from a higher headquarters located in a different town. For example,

the U.S. Army Reserve has also had success handing family matters for up to 130 individuals

deployed to Europe to perform maintenance tasks for a six month period using a single POC

and a toll-free telephone located at the U.S. Army Reserve Personnel Center in St. Louis,

Missouri.13

Evaluation.

One of the main problems that has been identified is the difficulty in keeping FSGs

going between deployments. For example, Peterson (1992) found that about 27% of spouses

reported that their soldiers' units had FSGs in place prior to ODS/S; the figure climbed to

12There was also a tendency to have neighborhood FSGs on active duty posts where a

large percent of the post was deployed. It is not clear whether the "neighborhood" members

also interacted with their units' FSG. Some FSGs "adopted" family members from a unit that

did not have an active FSG. This tendency was greatly increased if the family being adopted

was known to the FSG prior to the deployment and was willing to volunteer to help keep the

FSG going.

13Professionalization of FSGs is not a panacea. A volunteer who is a general's wife may

be able to get more done than an entire team of devoted Army staff. Likewise, many of the

qualities that are associated with successful operations (e.g., people skills, knowledge of the

Army system, and willingness to work beyond normal duty hours) depend more on the

personalities of the staff than whether they are paid or volunteer.

13
about 62% during ODS/S and then fell to about 27% after ODS/S ended.14

This rise and

fall in the popularity of FSGs (along with a constant turnover of personnel) means that the

Army is continually recruiting and training FSG volunteers. It also shows that there is more

of a felt need for a unit FSG during a deployment than when the unit is in garrison or on

routine assignments of short duration. However, to be most effective in supporting families

during a deployment, it is extremely important for the unit's family to know and trust one

another. This trust level is best build by having face to face contact prior to the deployment.

Training and resource materials are available; however, it is hard to get people to

volunteer to be trained prior to the unit being deployed. Attempting to train a leader once the

deployment is imminent (or in progress) is also quite difficult since the leader will have many

competing demands. Other recurring difficulties are a lack of volunteers to operate the FSG

and a lack of attendance at FSG meetings, particularly when the soldiers are not deployed.

Another serious difficulty is the lack of a clear definition of what the FSG should try

to accomplish. There are few hard and fast rules. Can a strictly social organization be

converted into a service organization? Can a group that attracts mostly officers' wives be

made rank inclusive?

The Rear Detachment

When an Army unit deploys, there are always some soldiers who are left behind in the

unit area. They are not deployed because they are needed to perform unit functions until the

deployed soldiers return, they are unable to deploy (e.g., they have a temporary physical

disability), or they are prohibited from deploying (e.g., they are being discharged from the

Army). The name that has been given to the group of individuals who are left behind is the

"Rear Detachment" (RD) and the individual who is in charge of this group is known as the

"Rear Detachment Commander" or RDC.

Functions.

Examples of unit functions performed by the RD include securing the unit and

personal property that is not being sent to the deployment site, administering the personnel

and pay functions for the soldiers, communicating with the deployed unit, and assisting

families of the deployed soldiers. Rear detachment activities that support families include:

providing family briefings, resolving Army issues (e.g., pay and personnel difficulties), and

helping the FSGs. Activities that support FSGs include: coordinating activities with the

FSG, furnishing unit rosters and keeping them up to date, producing and delivering unit

newsletters, and providing direct services to distressed family members (e.g., some RDs

mowed lawns and fixed cars although we do not recommend that these be considered usual

functions of RDs).

14Although the differences within these AC percentages parallel the differences within RC

percentages discussed in footnote 33, page 26 of this report, they show that RC families are

less likely than AC families to participate in FSGs.

14
RDs can also assume FSG functions if there is no FSG or if the FSG does not choose

to assume these responsibilities. Some RDs have 1-800 numbers for families to use to

contact RD personnel for information, advice, service referrals and to send urgent messages to

the deployed soldier. Having such a toll-free number (and a sympathetic and helpful person

answering it) seems to be particularly effective for families that are dispersed (e.g., the soldier

has not relocated them yet to the current duty station, they "went home" or because the

soldiers come from a variety of towns—the case for most RC units).

Structure.

ARI's research has involved primarily active duty installations that deployed most of

their units. We typically found a full colonel operating the RD at the installation level, with

subordinate elements of the division represented by an individual who was two ranks junior.

There were some notable exceptions to this pattern. One ODS/S division chose to combine

all of its RDs into a single command that was headed by a major. Also, several battalionlevel RDs were headed by CSMs.

When the unit being deployed is battalion-size or below, there is even greater variation

in characteristics of the RDC. Some units choose a particular individual (e.g., the

commander's secretary or a specific NCO). Other units have chosen to get the support from

outside the unit. For example, one ODS/S unit was serviced by a non-deploying unit at the

same installation. Six medical units were served by phone via a single captain located some

distance away. As noted above, the Maine National Guard unit used soldiers from the State

Headquarters which was co-located in the same town as the deploying unit.

Evaluation.

The workload needs to be reasonable. ODS/S showed us that you cannot sustain

family support functions for an entire division with a single RD and RDC. The post that tried

this found that it overloaded the FSGs, and it was subsequently abandoned. The AWC

spouses also described the same problem when a single action officer tried to act as the RDC

by phone for six Army Reserve medical units that had deployed during ODS/S. The RDC

was too busy to deal adequately with family needs. A similar problem may arise with

National Guard State Family Program Coordinators if the resources given to them do not

match the potential demands of having a large number of soldiers deployed from a given

state.

The RDC needs to be skilled, knowledgeable, and motivated. Commanders often

focus on picking the RDC based on his/her rank or prior military experience. However,

spouses and FSG leaders are more likely to say that the best RDCs are those who know the

Army and the family program, are skilled in handling people, and who feel "called" to

perform the RDC role. RDCs who resent being left behind and who show this resentment are

not as likely to be seen as effective. ARI interviews show that often the RDCs are not

specifically trained for their family support functions and are selected because of particular

skills in some non-family part of the RDCs job (e.g., handling the physical assets of the unit)

or because they were unable to deploy due to a physical problem or personnel requirement.

15
The problem of getting a trained RDC is further complicated by the fact that the decision

regarding who to use is often made at the last minute.

Vaitkus and Johnson (1991) asked battalion- and company-level FSG leaders in

Europe to rate three aspects of the RDCs with whom they worked. Most FSG leaders felt

that the RDCs they worked with were: (1) well qualified, (2) maintained a positive working

relationship with them, and (3) were helpful.15Spouses in the 1991 U.S. Army Eurpoe

(USAREUR) survey who were married to soldiers who had deployed to Saudi Arabia during

ODS/S were less positive (than the FSG leaders) in their judgements of the performance of

RDCs (HQ, USAREUR, 1991).16

The AWC spouses (1992) felt that the best way to ensure that the right person,

someone knowledgeable and caring, was chosen was to make family support a recognized

personnel position which they called the "Family Support Liaison/RDC."17This is a similar

position to that which exists in other English speaking armies. The benefits can be

considerable, including having a trained and respected specialist handling family issues at the

unit level. The main drawback of the "Family Support Liaison/RDC" seems to be the "cost"

of creating a new class of individuals who would not deploy.18

The RD staff should be known to the families. Solving problems requires that family

members trust the individual with whom they work. This requirement is easier to meet if the

15The findings from the survey are as follows:

1. RDC qualifications. 50% of battalion (and 50% of company) level FSGs rated the RDC

they worked with as very "well qualified." 90% of battalion level and 77% of company level

FSG leaders rated the RDC they worked with as at least somewhat "well qualified."

2. Working Relationships. 70% of battalion (and 52% of company) level FSG leaders rated

their working relationships with their RDCs as "excellent." 90% of battalion (and 78% of

company level) FSG leaders rate the working relationship as at least "good."

3. Agencies that were helpful to the FSG leader. 90% of both battalion and company level

FSG leaders rated the RDC as "always" or "sometimes helpful."

16The following percent agreed that their RDC: emphasized the importance of FSGs

(52%), provided adequate information to families (46%), made families feel comfortable

coming for help (45%) and were good at controlling rumors (36%).

The fact that spouses, in general, were less positive than the FSG leaders is not

surprising. Officers' spouses (which is what most FSG leaders were) tend to be more positive

than spouses, in general, about all aspects of Army life. Furthermore, FSG leaders are more

likely to appreciate how difficult providing family support can be and are thus more

sympathetic about what the RD is and is not able to accomplish.

17For a description of what this individual would do, see U.S. Army War College, 1992,

p. 96.

18A typical division-size post has 150 company-size units. If each company has an RDC,

that means up to 150 otherwise qualified soldiers are not available for deployment.

16
individual had a relationship with the unit (i.e., the battalion and its companies or batteries)

prior to deployment and if the role of the RD staff and RDC is clear. Normally the FSG calls

the unit's family members, but it can be done by the RD. In one deployment where the RD

did this, there were unexpected consequences. The deployed soldiers misinterpreted the

purpose of a male soldier phoning their wives at home. The upset resulted in this contact

being stopped. Apparently, the unit did not spend enough time explaining to the soldier how

family support would be accomplished and thus the trust level was not there. Other units

that have explained their procedures more thoroughly have not experienced this problem. In

fact, periodic calling of family members by the RD personnel has generally been found to be

beneficial.

The RDC and FSG roles must be clear. ARI has seen much variation in how these

two groups divide up the work. In some cases the FSG carries most of the load and in others

it is carried by the RD. This division of labor can be a point of contention unless it is clearly

stated who will perform which tasks. For example, prior to deployment, emergency data

cards are updated. It is important to know who will transfer that current information to

personnel rosters. Various arrangements can work, if the parties are willing, and the division

of labor is clear.

The Deployed Unit

Recent research has more to contribute to our understanding of the role of the unit in

family support, since relatively little has been written about this subject (see Appendix C).

The unit commander is responsible, by Army regulation, for providing many aspects of family

support such as: establishing the FSG, selecting who will staff the RD, ensuring that family

care plans remain current, and briefing families just prior to deployment. Unit leader policies

on emergency leave, morale (free) telephone calls, and the amount of "family time" that is

granted just prior to the deployment can all affect family morale. They are responsible for

getting important messages through to the deployed soldiers, squelching rumors, and

arranging for communication media for the soldiers.19

Communication between soldiers and their spouses back home has been a chronic

problem that has been studied repeatedly since World War II (Ender, 1995). Schumm, et al.

(1995), found during ORH that communication difficulties had a direct impact on adaptation

to the stresses of a deployment and that adaptation was, in turn, related to a number of

important Army concerns: family adaptation to the Army, spouse support for peacekeeping

missions, and spouses' estimation of the soldiers' willingness to remain in service. Schumm

also reported that spouse perceptions of leader support for families had a beneficial effect on

both deployment distress and most of the outcomes listed above.20

19More will be said about what deployed units do for families in a forthcoming report on

the 28th MFO rotation.

20Unfortunately, not all leaders are seen as supportive of families. During ODS/S, HQ,

USAREUR (1991) found that the spouses of deployed soldiers said that leaders were: not

generally supportive of families (38%), not giving adequate family time just prior to the

deployment (52%), and not good about getting needed information to the families (44%).

17
Unit commanders and their staff can do a great deal to assist both the FSG and the

RD in meeting family needs during deployments. For example, they can make

communications mechanisms available to soldiers. They can help keep family information on

rosters current. If the RD or FSG has difficulty reaching soldier' spouses, the soldier's unit

leader should contact the soldier to obtain the new information.

THE FAMILY SUPPORT SYSTEM AT INSTALLATION LEVEL

The purpose of this section is to describe how the Army's family support system at

the installation level (mostly Army posts) works during installation-wide and battalion-level

deployments. The information comes from three recent deployments: (1) the first MFO

rotation (1982), (2) ODS/S (1990-1991), and (3) ORH (1992).

Early MFO Rotations21

Structure.

Family support during the first rotation of MFO peacekeepers deploying to the Sinai

included a pre-deployment briefing (held in the brigade's chapel), with an individual from

each of the on-post service agencies describing services and indicating willingness to help.

All MFO families were enrolled in the family medical care program ahead of the existing

waiting list.

The second battalion of MFO peacekeepers to deploy to the Sinai from Fort Bragg

effected a change in the way the post provided services. The post had six months advance

notice of this deployment. During that time, certain "key wives" in the unit established a

steering committee to discuss and coordinate family support activities and services (Lewis,

1984). The activities they engaged in reflect what FSGs typically do today.

The battalion's FSG and RD made an effort to reduce the complexity of the Army

helping system by recruiting a single representative from each of the 12 most relevant offices

and agencies on post. These 12 persons agreed to be the first POC for MFO wives within

that agency and to meet periodically with the FSG and RD to plan and coordinate services.

21For additional information on family support during MFO rotations, see part A of

Appendix C.

18
These representatives were called the Family Assistance Staff.22 Although some providers

resisted it, the unit spouses felt that the coordination group worked quite effectively (Lewis,

1984).

Evaluation.

All 141 spouses in the first MFO rotation were given an information package

describing Army services that were available to them during the deployment. Services used

were tracked by weekly reports of agency contact with unit families. These records indicated

that the most used agency was finance (10%). It was the finance agency's impression that

these contacts would have been made even if the deployment had not taken place. The

second most frequently used agency was the Judge Advocate's office, contacted by 5% of the

families. The most common problem presented was families trying to deal with lack of

civilian acceptance of military Powers of Attorney. The remaining family agencies [Army

Community Service (ACS), American Red Cross, school, military police, and the Inspector

General's office] had even less contact (Van Vranken, et al., 1984).

Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm (ODS/S)

Post-wide agency use was much higher during ODS/S. This is not surprising given

that ODS/S was a war and that much larger numbers of soldiers in multiple units were

involved. Helms and Greene (1992) found that 35% of spouses reported they had some type

of "problem" during ODS/S. The most commonly reported difficulty was an emotional

problem (e.g., loneliness, fear, or worry) which they typically discussed with a friend or

relative. Half of the spouses with problems (17% of all spouses) brought them to the

attention of the Army. Most of these problems tended to be financial in nature. Therefore, it

is not surprising that Helms and Greene reported that Army service providers were most

22The twelve agencies that made up the Family Assistance Staff were representatives

from: (1) the Adjutant General's office; (2) the finance office; (3) G-l (personnel); (4) the

Deputy for Personnel and Community Affairs (DPCA); (5) Army Community Service; (6)

Organizational Effectiveness; (7) the chaplain's office; (8) the Staff Judge Advocate; (9) the

Public Affairs office; (10) the housing office; (11) the Army hospital; and (12) the division

mental health clinic. During ODS/S, many of these same agencies sent representatives to a

single location to form what was called the Family Assistance Center (FAC). The FAC often

operated on a 24-hours a day, seven days a week basis. The USAREUR Inspector General's

office suggested that this manning was excessive given the number of clients seen and

suggested that the centers maintain a 24-hour phone link but not provide services around the

clock (Bell, 1991). Some spouses insisted the centers be open continuously and offered to

provide manning support themselves. Although these volunteers did accomplish their mission

at some locations, the effect on soldiers and their families is unknown. We do know that the

paid staff experienced "burnout" trying to provide family services during this period (Helms

and Greene, 1992).

19
likely to report that the most frequent family problems during ODS/S were financial.23 This

difference in what problems spouses experience and what they bring to the Army is tied up to

spouses' preference (when possible) for informal support.

Helms and Greene (1992) also asked service providers to estimate which month during

ODS/S families were most likely to request given types of services. Their data show that the

more mechanical aspects of the deployment (e.g., getting one's affairs in order) peaked during

the early months whereas emotional needs (e.g., medical and emotional problems of spouses

and children) peaked during the time of the air wars preceding the first ground assault (Bell,

1991). The differences in levels of demands for services and types of services over time can

be used by installations in planning for service delivery during deployments.

Local community.

ODS/S saw a vast outpouring of public support which has not been matched during

the last 45 years. Installations were showered with food, clothes, and toys for needy service

members' families. Merchants and professionals offered free or discounted merchandise,

services, and advice. Some churches and other organizations adopted individual wives or

families and provided them with food, transportation, money, or even a "birthing coach" when

needed. Community support was also high in Germany.

Merchants and other local citizens showed their support of ODS/S by donating flags,

yellow ribbons, and other decorations so the post could show support for the soldiers.

Merchants and citizens hung these same materials on their homes and businesses; they

showed up for homecoming ceremonies and often donated food to ensure successful

functions. Churches and Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) clubs offered free meeting space

to help FSGs or other Army organizations, sometimes even providing refreshments and

childcare. Civilian newspapers and television stations provided advertising space for local

events and fund raisers. One television station went to Saudi Arabia for a week and donated

the film of the unit to the FSG (U.S. Army War College, 1992).

23Some of these financial problems are outside of the spouse's control. A few soldiers

experienced delays in receiving their pay or they received the wrong amount. The record of

what is being deposited (the "leave and earning statements") may be sent to the soldier or

kept in the unit. Also, some couples had trouble operating the system that the Army strongly

suggests: direct deposit of pay into a joint checking account.

ORH spouses reported fewer financial problems. The percent of officer spouses

reporting problems during ORH was 2% (versus 10% during ODS/S) and 16% (versus 31%

during ODS/S) for the spouses of enlisted soldiers (Bell and Teitelbaum, 1993).

20
Spouses of soldiers deployed to ODS/S expressed a high level of satisfaction with the

support that soldiers received from the American public, the recognition given to deployed

soldiers, and the reception soldiers received when they returned.24

Operation Restore Hope in Somalia

During ORH, spouses found installation-level services (i.e., local command briefings

and the installation radio/TV station) to be a more important source of information about what

the soldier and unit were doing than was true during ODS/S. Three factors seemed to

account for these differences: (1) there was less national news coverage of ORH, (2) most of

ORH's participants were from a single installation, and (3) that installation, Fort Drum, New

York, made a special effort to keep spouses informed (Bell and Teitelbaum, 1993; Bell, et al.,

in press; Kerner-Hoeg, Baker, Lomvardias, and Towne, 1993).

Spouses of soldiers deployed to ORH were more likely than spouses of soldiers

deployed to ODS/S to see Army Community Service, Army Chaplains, Army Social Workers,

and the Family Assistance Centers as being helpful to "deployed" families. ORH spouses

found these agents/agencies to be helpful or very helpful 84% to 92% of the time. Among

the services provided were a senior spouse council to coordinate the work of the battalion

FSG leaders, periodic command briefings in the post theater for spouses, and preparation of

FAX messages for transmission to the soldiers in the field.

Both the spouses of deployed and non-deployed soldiers during ORH found the public

to be much less supportive of the soldiers than during ODS/S. According to Segal, Segal,

and Eyre (1992), it is the nature of peacekeeping that the public does not notice the activity

as long as it is doing what it's supposed to do. Perhaps the installation(s) from which the

soldiers deploy should make special efforts to get the mass media to cover the peacekeeping

missions at least with stories in the local media. This would help to provide recognition of

the soldiers/ contributions and alert the local community to the need to support the family

members left behind.

THE NATURE OF DEPLOYMENT

Research has also clearly shown that there is a third family support system: the

strengths and assets of the family itself. This section will focus on that system. Specifically,

we will cover: (1) how deployments affect families, (2) how different kinds of families cope

with the deployment, and (3) the special issues of reunion.

How Deployments Affect Families

Families are always affected by deployments; both soldiers and their spouses worry

about each other and experience loneliness. Financial strains are also common, since the

24The percent of spouses saying they were satisfied or very satisfied with these three

aspects of public support was: 93%, 75% and 90%. The comparable figures for ORH were:

62%, 38%, and 59% (Bell and Teitelbaum, 1993).

21
soldier usually has additional expenses that are not part of the normal budget- such as insect

repellent and other personal use items, storage of household goods, long distance telephone

bills,25 and relocating the family to be closer to relatives. The deployed soldier's spouse is

also strained by the addition of new roles that the soldier usually assumes (e.g., repairing cars

and shoveling snow) and the fact that some life events, such as giving birth to a child, are

more difficult to cope with when a partner is away from home. These strains are magnified

when the deployment starts rapidly and lacks a specific start or return date. Other Stressors

include serving with a new unit in a remote place with no telephones and under dangerous

conditions.

"Cross leveling" (i.e., the shifting of personnel within and across units to even out

their resources) is not only a hardship on the soldier,26 but also creates a corresponding

hardship for the spouse. The spouse may have more difficulty getting the needed emotional

support and information if she/he does not know the other unit family members. Another

source of stress is that large deployments inevitably result in rumors and the emotionally

wrenching experience of not having the opportunity to say goodbye (or the equally distressing

experience of saying it many times).27

250ne of the consequences of modern technology has been the growing expectation among

soldiers and their families that they can call home from anywhere in the world, even the

battlefield. Although the telephone is a very satisfying means of communication, it is also

very expensive. Every post that ARI visited during ODS/S had stories of some soldier with

an unpaid telephone bill of a thousand dollars (Bell, 1991). These "same" stories were also

told during: Operation Just Cause (Ender, 1995), ORH (Bell and Teitelbaum, 1993), and

Operation Restore Democracy in Haiti.

Telephone bills can be reduced if the families know in advance what calling plans are

available, when the soldier can receive calls, what the time differences are between the

family's location and the deployment site, and what the costs are likely to be. It also helps if

the families know how and when to use alternative means of communication (e.g., audio and

video tapes, letters, FAXs, and government telephones).

Units and installations can help by providing soldiers and their families precise

information about the costs of telephone options (e.g., calling cards, calling plans, time and

place to call, and the availability of free [morale] calls).

26One of the best predictors of soldier adaptation to the stresses of deployment was having

a confidant with whom he/she could discuss what was happening to his/her family (Bell, et

al., 1993). The probability that such a confidant would be present is reduced when units are

cross leveled.

27For more details see Bell and Teitelbaum, 1993; HQ, USAREUR, 1991; Peterson, 1992.

22
How Families Cope

The deployment literature shows that certain actions help to reduce or buffer the stress

of family separation.28 For example, it is helpful to have planned financially for deployment

by increasing savings accounts and discussing the management of family finances before the

deployment starts. It also helps if the family has been living in the same community for a

while so that family members have established friendships and know where to locate needed

services. Once the deployment is announced, the soldier and the spouse can still do some

planning and getting things in order. An important part of the preparation is to adopt a

positive attitude; that is, research shows that families that remain positive and optimistic about

the separation cope better than families that dwell on the negative.

Bell (1991) provides a summary of actions which military and civilian literature

suggests spouses can take to reduce the stresses of deployments:

• Develop individual and family goals. Use them to develop/maintain family routines.

• Accept the lack of control over deployment events.

• Concentrate on what you can control: today, yourself, your family, your job, etc.

• Become or remain active: get a job, volunteer, or take up a hobby.

• Seek relevant information about the mission, the Army, and helping agencies.

• Seek social support from friends, relatives, Family Support Groups (FSGs), and the

families of other deployed soldiers.

• Communicate with the soldier, and open channels of communication within your

own family.

• Check out rumors, and don't believe everything you hear.

The family literature is clear on whether or not Army families can cope with

deployments: They can. A USAREUR study during the height of ODS/S showed no

difference between "deployed" and "non-deployed" spouses in their ability to cope with the

demands of daily life. Eighty-five percent of both groups said that they were able to meet the

family, work, and social demands that they faced (HQ, USAREUR, 1991). Furthermore, few

USAREUR FSG leaders reported seeing spouses who had "serious adjustment problems"

(Vaitkus and Johnson, 1991; Martin, Vaitkus, Mikolajek, & Johnson, 1993).

The fact that families can cope does not mean that they do not experience distress or

that the distress is equally distributed. Stress-related symptoms such as headaches, weight

change, insomnia, and menstrual irregularity are experienced even during peacetime

deployments (Wood, Scarville, & Gravino, 1995). Spouses of soldiers deployed to the

Persian Gulf were found to be twice as likely as spouses of non-deployed soldiers to

28For a review of what is known about family separation see: Bell, 1991; Hill, 1949;

Military Family Resource Center, 1984; Schumm, Bell, and Tran, 1994; and Appendix B of

this report.

23
experience stress the majority of the time during ODS/S.29 Stress symptoms such as these

usually diminish as the deployment continues. If they do not, professional help is probably

indicated for those few spouses who continue to experience problems. Spouses with the most

emotional and material resources are the ones who usually do best during a deployment.

These spouses are likely to be older, officers' wives, and spouses with good financial and

social supports (Bell, 1991).

If we are going to fully understand how families cope, we need to look at two

additional groups that are seldom included in research: (1) families that move away from

the post area during the deployment and (2) RC families who generally do not live near a

military installation.

Families that move.

The most extensive examination of families' relocation during a major deployment

was done by Peterson (1992). He found that 23% of spouses of deployed ODS/S soldiers

moved away from the post/area where they had lived. Those who move are more likely to be

married to junior enlisted soldiers.30 In general, these spouses do not have close ties to the

community (e.g., a paid job or school-age children). The stated reasons for moving mostly

involve getting more social support and/or bettering their financial condition.31

The majority of those who relocated achieved their objectives (e.g., being near

relatives). However, they were not as well adjusted to the deployment as those who stayed

near the post, nor did they avail themselves of needed Army information and support. It is

not clear from the Peterson's (1992) research how many of these differences were due to the

characteristics of those who moved (e.g., they were young) and how many were due to the

move itself.

290ver 40% of the spouses of deployed soldiers said that they felt sad, lonely, and had

trouble sleeping four or more days out of the week. Over 25% of these spouses of deployed

soldiers experienced these symptoms on a daily basis. Approximately 25% of these spouses

reported that they frequently had trouble keeping their minds on what they were doing, felt

that everything was an effort, and that they couldn't "shake the blues." The levels of reported

symptoms were even higher among the spouses of lower ranking deployed soldiers and those

who reported that they were not successful in dealing with family, work, and social

responsibilities (HQ, USAREUR, 1991).

30Peterson (1992) found that during ODS/S, 44% of the spouses of junior enlisted soldiers

had moved compared to 14% of the spouses of other ranks.

31According to Peterson (1992) the most frequent reasons given for relocating were:

getting closer to friends and relatives (93%), concerns about personal safety/security (69%),

financial problems (55%), child care (52%), better job opportunities elsewhere (49%), and

concern about lack of support from the Army community (45%).

24
The fact that "movers" tend to be young and to have more problems has been reported

in other deployments and by other researchers (Bell, 1991; Bell and Teitelbaum, 1993; Bell,

et al., in press; HQ, USAREUR, 1991; Van Vranken, Jellen, Knudson, Marlowe, and Segal,

1984). In fact, spouses of junior enlisted personnel are harder to reach with installation-level

family support programs even when they are not in a deployment (Bell and Teitelbaum,

1993).

Reserve Component Families.

The literature on how RC families adapt to the stresses of military deployments is

extremely limited. There were six major studies during ODS/S: four in the Army, one in the

Navy, and one in the Marine Corps. As a part of our current study of MFO rotation 28 (Bell,

Segal, and Rice, 1995), ARI also conducted limited interviews with service providers who

were associated with two battalion-size groups of National Guard engineers who undertook

six-month road building training exercises in central America (Bell et al., 1995). The

methodology and central findings of each of these studies is reviewed here.

Army Studies. The 1991/1992 Survey of Total Army Military Personnel (STAMP), a

military survey, included soldiers from the AC and RC. Of specific interest here were the

over 4,000 National Guard soldiers in the sample, particularly the over 500 NG soldiers in

STAMP who deployed to ODS/S (Elig, 1993a&b).

The most frequent problem among National Guard enlisted soldiers in Elig's (1993b)

study was that they were worried about their families. Other problems that affected at least

20% of the families were: problems communicating with the soldier, problems getting

household items or cars repaired, and children's behavior problems. Elig also reported that

most families were worried about their soldier and the war.

Most soldiers had a "confidant" in the unit with whom they could discuss their

problems. Bell, et al., 1993 (using this same database) found that having a confidant helped

the soldiers to cope with the stresses of the deployment. Soldier morale dropped during

ODS/S and had not yet returned to pre-war levels at the time of the survey. Elig also noted

that units were more likely to have had an active FSG (80%) during ODS/S than after the war

was over (44%). Overall, he found that most (52%) RC NG families of soldiers deployed to

ODS/S managed well or very well during the deployment.

Griffith and Perry (1993) conducted soldier surveys just before (Feb.-April, 1990) and

just after (July-Sept., 1991) ODS/S with over 3,000 U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) soldiers.

They compared responses of those who did (and did not) deploy to ODS/S. Their most

relevant major findings were: (1) Most families were supportive of their soldier's participation

in ODS/S; (2) The extended absence had a negative impact on spouses' attitudes toward

participation in the USAR; (3) Many junior enlisted felt that extended mobilization had been

a problem for their families; and (4) Spouse attitudes toward the USAR were related to

soldier willingness to remain in the USAR.

Rosenberg (1992; 1994) studied the families of 236 RC soldiers who were deployed

(mostly to Saudi Arabia) during ODS/S. Although this is not a random sample, it does

25
provide some insights into how RC families cope with deployment stress. Like AC families

(Bell and Teitelbaum, 1993; HQ, USAREUR, 1991), these families were more likely to report

specific deployment stress than stressful life events.

RC families, like AC families, are more likely to turn to families and friends for

support than to military or civilian agencies.32 For example, they make use of FSGs, which

are more like "friends" than a professional agency.33 The RC families are unlikely to use

installation-based social services. The only ones that Rosenberg's (1992) respondents did

make use of were: Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Service

(CHAMPUS) (45%), Family Assistance Centers which were often located in local reserve

centers (28%), and the American Red Cross (25%). Part of the problem here may be the

distance involved: installation services were more than 100 miles away from 40% of the

sample.

The RC families' pattern of adaptation to ODS/S was similar to AC families' (HQ,

USAREUR, 1991). They coped well with their jobs and household tasks; however, their

ratings of satisfaction with everyday life were lower than their ratings of coping. In other

words, they coped but they did not necessarily like it (Bell, 1991).

We also interviewed personnel associated with family support for Caminos Fuertes.

The main family "agency" in the North Carolina-based deployment was the unit's FSG. The

main family agency for the Maine-based deployment was a five-person task force of soldiers

that operated out of the state National Guard headquarters.

The main service for the first deployed unit was calls and letters to "waiting wives" on

their birthdays and wedding anniversaries to make them feel better about the deployment.

The main support service of the second unit's family support system was an 1-800 number

that was staffed 24 hours a day, seven days a week to handle possible family emergencies.

Both units felt that the most needed improvement was in their ability to help families that

were not located in the "home state" of the deployed unit and its support system.

Navy studies. Caliber Associates' (1993b) study of RC sailors who were deployed

during ODS/S was conducted at two sites: St. Louis, MO and San Diego, CA. The St. Louis

sample (sailors) is more relevant than the San Diego sample (medical personnel). The portion

of the St. Louis work reported here came from focus group discussions of family support

system operations. Apparently the St. Louis Center did not have any family support programs

32Researchers who have reported this preference for friends and relatives over Army

agencies include: Bell and Teitelbaum, 1993; Bell, Tiggle, and Scarville, 1991; HQ,

USAREUR, 1991. RC families most frequently reach out for civilian friends (Rosenberg,

1994). Most friends that AC families reach out for are military (Bell and Teitelbaum, 1993).

33The percent of RC spouses in Rosenberg's study who said that they actively participated

in FSGs increased from 11% prior to ODS/S to 59% during the war. Note that these figures

are much lower than Elig (1993b) found RC soldiers reporting for their spouses during this

same conflict. Also, it is much lower than the AC figures for ODS/S found on page 14.

26
prior to the deployment. Once the deployment started, a single NCO took on the family

support mission as his own. Local families made some use of the Center, but the Reserve

Center had problems supporting families that were geographically dispersed and far from the

center. Spouses worried about the safety of their sailors and the sailors worried about the

problems spouses were having taking care of children. RC sailors who had high paying

civilian jobs often lost income when they were deployed.

Marine Corps Studies. Caliber's (1993a) study of RC Marines arose out of site visits

to three Marine Corps bases in the United States. Written surveys were received from a nonrandom sample of 73 married Marines, and telephone interviews were completed with a nonrandom sample of 29 RC Marine Corps spouses. The researchers also interviewed leaders

and family support service providers at these same locations.

The findings from this study were quite similar to those reported elsewhere for the AC

(Bell et al., 1995). The Marine families that were least prepared for ODS/S and experienced

the most stress during ODS/S were those who were young, newly married, and not

experienced with deployments. The experiences that seemed to be causing the stress were:

missing the absent family members, problems communicating, increased role demands (e.g.,

being a single parent), and news reports.

Having supportive leaders, good/timely information, and good family support services

reduced stress. The services that families most wanted were: child care, legal and financial

assistance, and chaplain/religious services. However, the majority of families did not report

that they needed services. Families were more likely to turn to their extended family and

friends than to agencies for help. Service provider interviews showed the family dispersion

made serving the Marine Corps families difficult.

The effects of advance notice/distance to services. Most AC and RC service members

had little advance notice of the ODS/S deployment. Those who had advance notice used it to

handle financial, legal, family, and job-related matters. In fact, the degree to which families

and military personnel had their personal/family affairs in order was largely a function of how

much notice the service member received (Caliber Associates 1993a&b).

Distance to local Armory or mobilization sites was found to be related to attendance at

family briefings, service use, and attitudes toward the deploying unit (Caliber Associates

1993a). Distance and lack of current addresses also affected the ability of both RC and AC

facilities to provide family services during ODS/S (Bell et al., 1995; Caliber Associates,

1993a&b).

Reunion Issues

Family reunion following a long separation is not always a happy time. Research has

shown special reunion difficulties for servicemen who were prisoners of war in Vietnam.34

34For a listing of the main studies of reunion difficulties among the families of returning

Vietnam era prisoners of war see Schumm, et al. (1994), page 11.

27
The necessity of functioning as a single parent or head of the household forces the "nondeployed spouse" to assume new roles and allows independence which she/he is not always

willing or able to give up to accommodate the expectations of the returning partner. Recent

Army studies (discussed below) show that shorter, less traumatic separations may have similar

detrimental effects on marriages.

The majority (59%) of ODS/S spouses found that adjustment during the first month or

so was easy or very easy. The question of "current adjustments to reunion" (seven months

after the soldiers returned) were considered as "easy/very easy" by 73% of the spouses.

However, 9% of the spouses said that they were still having a difficult or very difficult time

adjusting (Peterson, 1992). Adaptation to reunion was even easier for spouses during ORH

(Bell, et al., in press). ORH was shorter, less dangerous (at least initially), and successful

reunion techniques were emphasized (Bell, et al., in press).

Deployment to ODS/S may have had a long-term effect. That is, the level of "current

marital satisfaction" (about seven months after ODS/S) was somewhat lower (76%

satisfied/very satisfied) than the level reported just prior to the start of ODS/S (81%

satisfied/very satisfied). Soldier data from a similar survey35 also showed a drop in marital

satisfaction. Likewise, many respondents said things were not yet back to normal for their

children (25%), their soldiers (20%), or themselves (18%). Yet, contrary to popular opinion,

ODS/S did not increase the divorce rate.36

Even where there are no long-term detrimental effects, reunion is still a period of

adaptation and adjustment. Changes often will have occurred in each spouse, between the

spouses, and in the children. Sometimes the long-term effects are positive for the individuals

and for the relationship, but the process may be painful while the partners (and the children)

are going through it.

Specific behavioral tasks spouses found to be "difficult" or "very difficult" included:

handling family finances (26%), adjusting to new daily household routines (24%),

disciplining/handling children (22%), and meeting the expectations of children (21%).

About a third of the spouses received reunion briefings (36%) and reunion materials

(34%). About half of those who received the materials and/or briefings found them to be

helpful (Peterson, 1992). There was no analysis showing the relationship between receiving

reunion help and actual reunion adjustment.

HOW TO IMPROVE THE FAMILY SUPPORT SYSTEM

It is difficult, if not impossible, to specify what the ideal system would look like given

the wide variations in deployments, existing systems, and family needs. However, we can

35The Survey of Total Army Military Personnel (1991-1992).

36See: Durand, 1992; Teitelbaum, 1991; and Teitelbaum, 1992.

28
discuss several broad goals, and what the Army is doing to meet them. In the largest sense,

the ideal system is one that prevents problems, helps families to react to the problems that do

occur, and prepares them (and the system) to do better in the future.

Prevention

One of the best ways to assist families is to prevent problems from occurring in the

first place. This principle is seen in many of the activities that the Army undertakes just prior

to a deployment. Dual military couples and single parents are asked to see if their required

child care plan is currently viable. Soldiers are given opportunities to make wills and draw

up powers of attorney. Soldiers and families are given briefings and written materials. If

possible, the soldier is also given time off just before the deployment to get his/her personal

and family affairs in order and to spend time with his/her family.

Some units go further by holding exercises and alerts to encourage soldiers to get and

keep their family plans in order. Others make good use of the FSGs and unit events to help

families to network, learn coping skills, and to increase their knowledge of what the Army

and its family help system is like. The Army Family Team-Building program (U.S. Army

Community and Family Support Center, 1995), and similar local programs, also help families

to be prepared for deployments.

Since many of the problems that families face are financial in nature, any effort that

provides more financial resources to the soldier's families is a step in the right direction.

Examples of these kinds of Army efforts include budget and check-writing classes, moving

junior enlisted families onto posts, and low cost childcare programs.

Despite the Army's best efforts, too often the training and resources just do not reach

the individuals who most need them when a deployment starts: the leaders of the FSG and

RDs. This obstacle must be overcome. More people need to be trained so that someone is

ready to assist families when the time comes. Additionally, more support needs to be

provided to the volunteers (e.g., sample support handbooks, computer support, resource

materials, and knowledgeable consultants) so that their time is better spent.

We need to evaluate the programs and materials that exist to provide even better tools

to those who work at the small unit level. For example, Peterson's review of reunion

materials (1992) showed that only a third of the spouses received them and only

half of those who received them felt they were useful. More evaluation will be needed if

better tools are to be designed.

We also need to re-think what we are doing. Should we be paying more attention to

the spouses who "go home?" Do we really know what they need? Should we be doing more

with the telephone and less with FSG meetings? Would greater use of 1-800 numbers help

those who live outside the local calling area? Is time spent on sponsorship and outreach

programs a better investment than deployment services once the troops have left? We also

need to pay more attention to the families of soldiers who joined the deploying unit as

individual "fillers" or as the result of being "cross attached" to a larger unit. Unless the unit's

29
FSG makes a special effort to reach out to these families, they may well get "lost." They

don't have the historic ties to the unit and thus an easy access to the support that is available.

Assistance During the Deployment

During the deployment, families may have various needs which can be traced to the

deployment or existing problems which are more acute because the soldier is absent. An

unresolved pay problem can affect the morale of both the soldier and spouse. Rumors may

be rampant. Families are more often motivated to learn about coping techniques when the

deployment is imminent or in progress. Lessons in coping are taught by Army and civilian

specialists, as well as by experienced spouses.

Families can also benefit from having more experienced and powerful allies in facing

their problems. Who the ally is will be different for each family member in different

situations, units, and deployments. The RD can serve this function for problems relating to

the organization. The Army can promote social activities that not only help family members

pass the time but also provide an opportunity for families to make friends and establish social

networks. This is especially important because of the well-documented research finding that

people prefer informal sources of support.

The help that is offered should be prompt, effective, and easy to get. It should also be

coordinated with what others are doing since solving one problem (e.g., how to telephone the

soldier) may create other problems (e.g., how to pay for it).

Doing Better in the Future

One of the goals of the helping system must be that the families are better able to

cope with future deployments than they were during the current one. The families should be

encouraged to form mutual support relationships (e.g., baby sitting clubs, car pools, and

friendships) that allow them to handle what they can without Army help. We also need to

teach families how to deal with the Army legal, medical and other support systems so that

they can, when possible, solve their own problems.

The Army needs to encourage the local community (e.g., churches, VFW halls, and

local service clubs) to reach out to the Army families that are having trouble managing while

the soldier is away.

Having a better system or more informed families starts with a good exchange of

information. Exchanges need to occur at all levels: spouses, FSG leaders, program managers,

and researchers. For example, this publication and others by the Army War College (AWC)

and the Center for Army Lessons Learned are all effective modes of communicating what is

known. How to conduct family support operations might be a good topic for discussion in all

Army leadership courses, senior spouse councils at local posts, or conventions of ACS

directors. However, we still lack good models for such basic elements of the support

program as how to write a unit family support manual, what should go in the unit newsletter,

and what to tell a future RDC to do to support FSGs.

30
Of course, there is a need for more research into what works and what does not.

Some of these ideas might come from the civilian sector (e.g., stress coping used by

police spouses) or foreign military organizations (e.g., the professionalization of family

support in the British Army).

CONCLUSIONS

The Army's family support system for deployments has evolved considerably during

the last 200 years. The Army has moved from a system where the only families it supported

were those who worked for the Army as "support troops" to the current system where care of

all families is an accepted part of the Army mission. This change has come about because

the Army recognizes that family support is not only the "right" thing to do, but is also in the

Army's best interest.

The current support system consists of three parts: (1) the largely professional agencies

(e.g., the chaplains, the ACS, family housing) that operate at the installation level, (2) the unit

leadership and volunteer system that primarily operates at the battalion or company level, and

(3) the families themselves. These three interdependent systems can be seen during the first

MFO deployment in 1982 and in all of the major deployments ever since (e.g., ODS/S, ORH

in Somalia, Operation Just Cause in Panama, and Operation Restore Democracy in Haiti). A

less well understood system has also come into being for the RC during major deployments

and training exercises.

A body of literature has developed since 1980 that describes what is demanded of

families during deployments and what resources are available to help them to cope. Thus we

know what the major Stressors are, what families do to cope, and which elements of the

Army's support systems are most used and found to be helpful. We also know which types

of individuals and families are most likely to experience given Stressors, seek help, and get

their problems resolved. The main shortcoming of this literature is that it is uneven. We

know more about large scale/dramatic deployments than we do about the more frequent and

routine deployments of units and training exercises. We also know very little about RC

deployments which are becoming fairly routine. Furthermore, we know more about what has

been tried than we do about what works in given situations.

31
REFERENCES

Albano, S. (1994). Military recognition of family concerns: Revolutionary War to 1993.

Armed Forces and Society. Winter 20(2), 283-302.

Army Chief of Staff. (1983). White paper 1983: The Army family. Washington, DC:

Headquarters, Department of the Army.

Bell, D. B. (1991, November). The impact of Operations Desert Shield/Desert Storm on

Army families: A summary of findings to date. Paper presented at the 53rd annual

conference of the National Council on Family Relations, Denver, CO.

Bell, D. B., & Iadeluca, R. B. (1987). The origins of volunteer support for Army family

programs (ARI Research Report 1456). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research

Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. (AD A190 587)

Bell, D. B., Schumm, W. R., Elig, T. W., Palmer-Johnson, C. E., & Tisak, J. (1993, August).

Helping Army families cope with deployments: Lessons learned from Desert Storm.

Paper presented at the 101st Annual Convention of the American Psychological

Association, Toronto, Canada.

Bell, D. B., Segal, M. W., & Rice, R. E. (1995, October). Family issues in the assignment of

reservists to peacekeeping duty. Paper presented at the Inter-University Seminar on

Armed Forces and Society Biennial Conference, Baltimore, MD.

Bell, D. B., & Teitelbaum, J. M. (1993, October). Operation Restore Hope: Preliminary

results of a survey of Army spouses at Ft Drum, New York. Paper presented at the

Inter-University Seminar on Armed Forces and Society Biennial Conference,

Baltimore, MD.

Bell, D. B., Teitelbaum, J. M., & Schumm, W. R. (In press). Family support "lessons

learned" in Operation Restore Hope (Somalia): An Army mission other than war.

Military Review.

Bell, D. B., Tiggle, R. B., & Scarville, J. (1991). The Army Family Research Program:

Select preliminary findings on Army family support during Operation Desert Shield

(ARI Research Product 91-20). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the

Behavioral and Social Sciences. (AD A242 754)

Caliber Associates. (1993a). Study of impact of Operation Desert Shield/Storm

(ODS/S) on Marine Corps families and effectiveness of family support programs

in ameliorating impact: Volume II: Final Report (Contract Number: N00600-91-

D-0364). Fairfax, VA: Author.

33
Caliber Associates. (1993b). Study of impact of Operation Desert Shield/Storm

(ODS/S) on Navy families and effectiveness of family support programs in

ameliorating impact: Volume II: Final Report (Contract Number: N00600-91-D0364). Fairfax, VA: Author.

Durand, D. B. (1992, August). The redistribution of responsibilities and power in Army

families following Operation Desert Shield/Storm Reunions. Paper presented at

the Section on Sociology of Peace and War at the 87th annual meeting of the

American Sociological Association, Pittsburgh, PA.

Elig, T. W. (1993a). 1991/1992 Surveys of Total Army Personnel (STAMP): ARNG officer

responses (Unpublished manuscript). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute

for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Elig, T. W. (1993b). 1991/1992 Surveys of Total Army Personnel (STAMP): ARNG soldiers

responses (Unpublished manuscript). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute

for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Emper, N. H., Jr., & Varcoe, K. P. (1995). Army Community Service: An ACS Directors'

list of resource materials. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Community and Family

Support Center.

Ender, M. G. (1995). G.I. Phone home: The use of telecommunications by the soldiers

of Operation Just Cause. Armed Forces and Society, 21(3), Spring, 435-454.

Griffith, J., & Perry, S. (1993, August). Examination of soldier perceptions of employer

and family conflicts with USAR service, perceptions of quality of unit activities,

and perceptions of individual and unit preparation for combat. Paper presented at

the 101st annual convention of the American Psychological Association, Toronto,

Canada.

Headquarters, Department of the Army (1993). Personal Affairs: A guide to establishing

Family Support Groups (Department of the Army Pamphlet 608-47). Washington,

DC: Author.

Helms, R. F., II, & Greene, J. (1992). Army family support requirements: Operation Desert

Shield and Operation Desert Storm (Vol. I). Research Triangle Park, NC: Research

Triangle Institute.

Hill, R. (1949). Families under stress. New York: Harper & Row. (Reprinted Westport, CT:

Greenwood Press, 1971.)

HQ, USAREUR (1991, May). USAREUR personnel opinion survey 1991: General findings

report. Vol. 1 Family. (USAREUR Pamphlet 600-2). Paper presented at the

U. S. Army Walter Reed Institute of Research Professional Seminar, Forest Glen, MD.

34
Kagan, R., & Schlosberg, S. (1988). Families in perpetual crises. New York, NY: W. W.

Norton & Co., Inc.

Kerner-Hoeg, S., Baker, S., Lomvardias, C, & Towne, L. (1993). Operation Restore Hope.

Survey of Army spouses at Fort Drum, New York: Survey methodology and data

book. Fairfax, VA: Caliber Associates.

Lewis, C. S. (1984). A supportive network structure for waiting wives. (Unpublished

manuscript). Washington, DC: Walter Reed Army Institute of Research.

Martin, J. A., Vaitkus, M. A., Mikolajek, L. M., & Johnson, M. D. (1993). Desert Storm

Army families in Europe. Military Review, 73(4), 21-27.

Military Family Resource Center (1984). Review of military family research and literature

annotated bibliography. Washington, DC: Office of the Assistant Secretary of

Defense, Manpower, Planning, and Analysis.

Munson, C. E. (1982). An introduction to clinical social work supervision. Binghamton,

NY: Hawrth Press, Inc.

Oliver, L. A., & Bell, S. A. (1991). Family support and services in the Army active

component (Unpublished manuscript). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute

for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Peterson, M. (1992). 1991 Survey of Army Families II: Final Summary (Unpublished

manuscript). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and

Social Sciences.

Rosen, L. N., Teitelbaum, J. M., & Westhuis, D. J. (1993). Stressor, stress mediators and

emotional well-being among spouses of soldiers deployed to the Persian Gulf during

Operations Desert Storm/Shield. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 23(19), 1587-

1593.

Rosenberg, F. R. (1992, April). Reserve family well-being survey. Paper presented at the

Office of the Secretary of Defense family research in-progress review, The Pentagon,

Washington, DC.

Rosenberg, F. R. (1994). Spouses of Reservists and National Guardsmen: A survey of the

effects of Desert Shield/Storm. In D. R. Segal (Ed.) Peace Operations: Workshop

proceedings (ARI Research Report 1670). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research

Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. (AD A292 116)

Schumm, W., Bell, D. B., & Tran, G. (1994). Family adaptation to the demands of Army

life: A review of findings (ARI Research Report 1658). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. (AD A285 952)

35
Schumm, W. R., Bell, D. B., Knott, B., & Ender, M. G. (1995, March). The desert fax:

Calling home from Somalia. Paper presented at the Eastern Sociological Society

Meeting, Philadelphia, PA.

Segal, M. W., & Harris, J. J. (1993). What we know about Army families (ARI Special

Report 21). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and

Social Sciences. (AD A271 989)

Segal, D. R., Segal, M. W., & Eyre, D. P. (1992). The social construction of peacekeeping in

America, Sociological Form, 7(1), 121-136.

Taft, J. J. (1986). Task-centered approach. In Anne Minahan (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Social

Work. Washington, DC: National Association Of Social Workers.

Teitelbaum, J. M. (1991, October). Unit level spouse support and generic family

assistance at major army supports during Operation Desert Shield/Storm. Paper

presented at the Biennial International Conference of the Inter-University

Seminar on Armed Forces and Society, Baltimore, MD.

Teitelbaum, J. M. (1992, April). OPS and Post-ODS divorce and child behavioral

problems. Paper presented at the Office of the Secretary of Defense family

research in-progress review Pentagon, Washington, DC.

U.S. Army War College (1992). Who cares? We do!! Experiences in family support, U. S.

Army War College Class of 1992 spouses and students. Carlisle Barracks, PA:

Author.

U.S. Army Community and Family Support Center (1995). Army family team building.

Alexandria, VA: Author.

U.S. Army Family Liaison Office (1995). Some things you might want to know... A

resource booklet for Army family members (Unpublished manuscript). Washington,

DC: Author.

Vaitkus, M., & Johnson, M. (1991, May). USAREUR family support research: Operation

Desert Storm. Paper presented at the U.S. Army Walter Reed Institute

of Research Professional Seminar, Forest Glen, MD.

Van Vranken, E. W., Jellen, L. K., Knudson, K. H. M., Marlowe, D. H., & Segal, M. W.

(1984). The impact of deployment separation on Army families

(Report NP-84-6). Washington, D.C.: Walter Reed Army Institute of Research.

Winneke, M. S. (Ed.) (1991). The yellow ribbon. Fort Leavenworth, KS: Center for Army

Lessons Learned, U.S. Army Combined Arms Command.

Wood, S., Scarville, J., & Gravino, K. S. (1995). Waiting wives: Separation and reunion.

Armed Forces and Society, Winter 21(2), 217-236.

36
APPENDIX A

Family Support Programs and Source Materials

The following is a list of programs and source materials that can be used in designing

a unit based program of support for the families of deployed soldiers. All items are available

from their publishers and/or:

DoD Military Family Resource Center (MFRC)

4015 Wilson Blvd, Suite 903

Arlington, VA 22203

703-696-5806

FAX: 703-696-1703

DSN: 426-5806

All of the materials listed here should be helpful to those support families. Inclusion

on the list does not constitute an endorsement of the product nor does the fact that a given

document is not included mean that it is not to be used.

Catalogs for Commercially Produced Family Support Pamphlets

Channing L. Bete Co., Inc. (1995). 1995 Catalog of Scriptographic Publications. South

Deerfield, MA: Author.

The Bureau for at Risk Youth (1995). Military Family Resources. Huntington, NY:

Author.

Commercially Produced Family Support Pamphlets

Channing L. Bete Co., Inc. (1985). About Deployment. South Deerfield, MA: Author.

Channing L. Bete Co., Inc. (1991). About Family Support Groups. South Deerfield, MA:

Author.

Channing L. Bete Co., Inc. (1995). Deployment Days. South Deerfield, MA: Author.

Channing L. Bete Co., Inc. (1995). Make the Most of Family Support Groups. South

Deerfield, MA: Author.

Channing L. Bete Co., Inc. (1995). Meeting the Challenges of Deployment. South Deerfield,

MA: Author.

Channing L. Bete Co., Inc. (1992). Let's Talk About Deployment. South Deerfield, MA:

Author.

A-l
Channing L. Bete Co., Inc. (1995). Protect Your Family with a Family Care Plan. South

Deerfield, MA: Author.

Channing L. Bete Co., Inc. (1985). Until Daddy Comes Home Again. South Deerfield,

MA: Author.

Channing L. Bete Co., Inc. (1985). Until Your Parent Comes Home Again. South Deerfield,

MA: Author.

Comerci, G. W., Glaser, M.E., & Embry, D. D. (1990). Someone in my family went to

Somalia: For children 4-8 years old and the adults who love them. Tucson, AZ:

Heartsprings, Inc.

Comerci, G. W., Glaser, M.E., & Embry, D. D. (1990). Someone in mv family went to

Somalia: For young people and the adults who love them. Tucson, AZ:

Heartsprings, Inc.

Corder, B., & Haizlip, T. (no date). A Coloring Book: Feelings About War. Child

Psychiatry Training program of Dorothea Dix Hospital.

Embry, D. D. (1993). They're coming home story workbook: For children 4-8 years and

the adults who love them. Tucson, AZ: Heartsprings, Inc.

Embry, D. D. (1991). They're coming home: For children 4-8 years and the adults who

love them. Tucson, AZ: Project Me, Inc.

Embry, D. D. (1993). Someone in my family just got deployed story workbook: For

children 4-8 years and the adults who love them. Tucson, AZ: Heartsprings, Inc.

Embry, D. D., & Ernst, S. L (1991). They're coming home: For spouses and significant

others. Tucson, AZ: Project Me, Inc.

Embry, D. D., & Rubenstein, A. (1991). They're coming home: A guide for parents of

infants and toddlers. Tucson, AZ: Project Me, Inc.

Perez, J., & Embry, D. D. (1991). I'm coming home: For military personnel returning

from deployment. Tucson, AZ: Project Me, Inc.

Rubenstein, A., & Embry, D. D. (1991). They're coming home: For children 4-8 years

and the adults who love them. Tucson, AZ: Project Me, Inc.

Rubenstein, A., & Embry, D. D. (1991). They're coming home: For family, friends and

community. Tucson, AZ: Project Me, Inc.

A-2
Sample Family Support Manuals Generated by Battalions

Headquarters, 4th Battalion, 505 Parachute Infantry Regiment, 82nd Airborne Division

(November, 1994). Family Support Handbook. Fort Bragg, NC: Author.

Headquarters, 3d Battalion (Patriot) 43d Air Defense Artillery (March, 1994). 43d Air

Defense Artillery Rear Detachment/Family Support Operations "Those Who staved

Home. Fort Bliss, TX: Author.

Headquarters, 1st Battalion, 327th Infantry Regiment, 101st Airborne Division (Air

Assault) (June, 1993). Family Support Handbook: Sinai. Fort Campbell, KY:

Author.

Family Support Manuals Generated by Commercial Organizations

Educational Publication, Inc. (1993). What's Next? A guide to Family Readiness for the

National Guard. Elkins, PA: Author.

Educational Publication, Inc. (1993). What's Next? A guide to Family Readiness for the

U. S. Army. Elkins, PA: Author.

Family Support Materials Generated by Military Sources

Amin, D. G., Jellen, L. Mervens, E., & Lee, R. L. (1988). Minimizing the impact of

deployment separation on military children: Stages, current preventative efforts,

and system recommendations. Military Medicine, 153, (9), 441-446.

Army Family Liaison Office (1995). Some things you might want to know... A resource

booklet for Army family members. (Unpublished manuscript). Washington, DC:

Author.

Baker, J. (1990). "The Long Goodbye." Military Lifestyle, 22, 20-22, 24-28, 30, 40,62.

British Defense Ministry (1994). Notes for Families of Soldiers Deployed to UN

Operations.

Dorn, R. M., Snyder, A. I., & Lexier, L. J. (1980, October). Navy Marriage: Separations

and reunions. Paper presented at the "Challenge of helping Others-Part 1,"

Symposium for the U.S. Navy Family Ombudsmen, Norfolk, VA.

Emper, N. H., Jr., & Varcoe, K. P. (1995). Army Community Service: An ACS

Directors' list of resource materials. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Community and

Family Support Center.

A-3
Headquarters, Department of the Army (January, 1984). Family Assistance Handbook

for Mobilization (Department of the Army Pamphlet 360-525). Washington, DC:

Author.

Headquarters, Department of the Air Force (October, 1985). Family Separations: Air

Force Family Matters (Department of the Air Force Pamphlet 30-36). Washington,

DC: Author.

Headquarters, First Army (August, 1990). Military Installations Providing Family Services

in the First U.S. Army Area. (First U.S. Army pamphlet 360-1). Fort Meade, MD:

Author.

Maine National Guard (1994). Families of Guard Booklet: Maine National Guard Family

Program. Augusta, ME: Author.

Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force Management & Personnel (September,

1990). Ordered to Active Duty. What Now? A Guide for Reserve

Component Families. Washington, DC: Author.

Office of Family Policy, Support, and Service, Department of Defense (1995).

The good ideas handbook: A guide to unique Family Center Program throughout

DoD. Arlington, VA: Author.

Schumm, W. Bell, D. B., & Tran, G. (1994). Family adaptation to the demands of Army

life: A review of findings (ARI Research Report 1658). Alexandria, VA: U. S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. (AD A285 952)

Second United States Army (October, 1990). Family Readiness Handbook. Fort Gillem,

GA: Author.

Segal, M. W., & Harris, J. J. (1993). What we know about Army families (Special Report

21). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social

Sciences.

Sommers, Y. M., Strzelecki, C, Pinto, C, Kline, A., & Rooney, M. (1990). Roses and

Thorns: A Handbook for Marine Corps Enlisted Wives. Quantico, VA: The Marine

Corps Association.

U. S. Army War College (1992). Who cares? We do!! Experiences in family support.

U. S. Army War College Class of 1992 spouses and students. Carlisle Barracks,

PA: Author.

Winneke, M. S. (Ed.). (1991). The Yellow Ribbon (Army Lessons from the home front

Desert Shield-Desert Storm). (Special Bulletin 91-2). Ft Levenworth, KS: Center

for Army Lessons Learned (CALL), U. S. Army Combined Arms Command (CAC).

A-4
Sample Family Programs and Activities

Blaisure, K.R., & Arnold-Mann, J. (1992). Return and reunion: A psychoeducational program

aboard U. S. Navy ships. Family Relations, 41 (2), 178-185.

Department of the Army, Office of the Chief of chaplains. (1990). Reunion: Training

Resources for the Unit Ministry Team. Washington, DC: Author.

Griffiths, G. C, & Fairchild, L. S. (1991). The Human Response to Operation Desert

Shield/Storm. Fort Bragg, NC: U. S. Army Medical Department Activity.

Headquarters, 4th Battalion, 505 Parachute Infantry Regiment, 82nd Airborne Division

(No date). Family Support Group Program. Fort Bragg, NC: Author.

O'Beirne, K. (1983). Key wives' recipe for success: Marine wives at Cherry Point, North

Carolina. Family, 11(1), 38-46.

U.S. Army Community and Family Support Center (1995). Army Family Team BuildingFamilv Member Training: Level I- Introduction. Alexandria, VA: Author.

U.S. Army Community and Family Support Center (1995). Army Family Team BuildingFamily Member Training: Level II- Intermediate. Alexandria, VA: Author.

U.S. Army Community and Family Support Center (1995). Army Family Team BuildingFamily Member Training: Level III- Advanced. Alexandria, VA: Author.

Program Evaluation

Caliber Associates. (1992). A study of the effectiveness of family assistance programs in

the Air Force during Operation Desert Shield/Storm: Follow-up with single parents

and dual military couples. Fairfax, VA: Author.

Deployment Support Programs Working Group. (1987). Navv Family Service Centers'

Deployment Support Programs- A summary of Principles, Promising Practices,

Materials, and Resources For FSCs Supporting Operating Units. Washington DC:

Navy Family Support Program Division.

O'Keefe, A. (1989). Military Family Support: An International Overview (Unpublished

manuscript). Washington DC: Author.

A-5
Appendix B

Families That Do Not Adapt Well to Deployments

With all families, it is important to encourage successful coping and discourage

increased dependency. Unit family support efforts need to focus on mutual support with the

goal of building life strengths and life skills. The group and group leaders need to set

reasonable expectations of what the group can and cannot do for itself and each other. Group

leaders need to work closely with the RDC and community agencies. It is important to have

these relationships established before a crisis brings everyone together. Active FSG outreach

needs to take place with families facing critical life events (e.g., being new to the community,

illness, and pregnancy).

There may be a few demanding unit members' spouses who drain the leader's time

and patience. FSG leaders must watch out for families that demand more services from the

FSG than it is prepared to give (e.g., childcare, loans, transportation, and endless emotional

support). There is little guidance on how to separate these types of families from those who

need an ordinary amount of help and assistance. Furthermore, there is little written about

how to be equitable in the services that are provided.

Experience has shown that there are two "types" of families that do particularly poorly

during deployments: the "multiple (or chronic) problem" family and the "overly dependent

family." The reasons for their inability to cope are different and so are the actions which the

FSG must take.

The Chronic/Multiple Problem Family.

The chronic/multiple problem family is typically well known to unit leaders and local

social service agencies.1 These families are hard to deal with because they have so many

problems (e.g., debts, unemployment, mental illness, family member abuse, and so forth) and

the problems feed on each other. The test for whether this is the type of family that you have

is the reaction that you get from leaders and service providers when you mention the family.

If they begin telling you how much trouble they have had even before the soldier deployed,

then chances are its a multiple problem family. If this is the type of family you are dealing

with, you must involve the unit leadership and family service agencies. The FSG can provide

reasonable support but it cannot provide psychotherapy, economic resources, or settle family

disputes. If the family requires that the soldier come back home to help them cope, that is a

command decision.

The overly dependent family (or spouse).

The overly dependent family (or spouse) is one that is not prepared for the strains that

are inherent in the military way of life. This family unit probably functions well as long as

'They are also known to the family helping profession (Kagan and Schlosberg, 1988;

Munson, 1982; Taft, 1986).

B-l
the soldier is at home. However, when the soldier leaves, the spouse is unable to function

alone. Rather than looking on the deployment as an opportunity for growth, this spouse looks

for (or even demands that) some benign outside agent step in and do things for him/her. If

FSG members fall into this pattern, FSG leaders will quickly find themselves running two

households: their own and that of the dependent spouse. The soldier often cooperates in

making his/her spouse dependent by robbing her/him of the needed tools to function: a car,

drivers license, check book, and an opportunity to practice the skills of adult living.

Sometimes this spouse is young and inexperienced.

This type of spouse often responds to information and encouragement, particularly

from his/her peers. The couple may also respond to some problem-solving sessions,

particularly prior to the deployment (e.g.," how will your family get food once you are

deployed?"). This approach is particularly helpful if the family has never experienced a long

deployment before. Enabling the spouse to connect with others who have experienced and

coped with separations may provide enough help.

If patience, encouragement, and information does not produce results, the problem may

well be that the spouse is unwilling rather than unable to cope on her/his own. If the FSG is

providing lots of help, but the problem is not getting better, the FSG leader may need some

additional help from the family professionals on what is the best next step. If the spouse

responds to each suggestion with "yes, but" and then goes on to say why the FSG must do for

the family what most families do for themselves, then the FSG needs help from the

professional to keep the dependent family from falling into the trap of believing that because

a problem is present the FSG (not the soldier and his/her family) must solve it. Again, if the

family cannot solve its own problems, it becomes the problem of the professional family

support agencies (e.g., get the family an emergency loan to return their hometown or

counseling) or the Army command (e.g., send the soldier home).

B-2
APPENDIX C

Recent Research on Family Support During Deployment

The purpose of this collection is to provide a summary of what is known about family

support during prolonged overseas military deployments. The list of publications that follows

includes all of the reports that we encountered. It is divided into six sections. The first five

covered published and unpublished reports. These sections are: (A) Peacekeeping, (B)

Operation Desert Storm and Desert Shield, (C) Navy deployments, (D) Other deployments,

and (E) Other related reports.

This list is provided as source materials for people who may be interested in specific

aspects of deployment. Those resources actually used in the review also appear in the

reference lists at the end of the report.

Section A:

Family Support during Peacekeeping Operations

Furukawa, T.P., & Teitelbaum, J.M., (1987). Human dimensions anatomy of a light infantry

and its families. (Unpublished Manuscript). Washington DC: Dept. of Military

Psychiatry, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research.

Lewis, C. S. (1984). A supportive structure for waiting wives. (Unpublished manuscript).

Washington, DC: Department of Military Psychiatry, Walter Reed Army Institute of

Research.

Rosen, L. N., & Moghadam, L. Z. (1988). Social support, family separation, & well-being

among military wives. Behavioral Medicine, 14, 2, 64-70.

Rosen, L. N., & Moghadam, L. Z. (1989). Social supports among Army wives. In

R. J. Schneider, & J. M. Teitelbaum, (Eds.) Research progress report to the

Community and Family Support Center. Washington, DC: Department of Military

Psychiatry, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research.

Rosen, L. N., & Moghadam, L. Z. (1990). Matching the Support to the Stressor:

Implications for the buffering hypothesis. Military Psychiatry, 2 (4), 193-204.

Segal, D. R., Furukawa, T. P., & Linde, J. C. (1990). Light infantry as peacekeepers in the

Sinai. Armed Forces & Society, 16, 385-403

Segal, D. R, & Segal, M. W. (1993). Peacekeepers and their wives: American participation

in the Multinational Force and Observers. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

C-l
Teitelbaum, J. M., Wood, S., & Gravino, K. (1989). Adjustment and adaptation of enlisted

family members to separation during long term unit deployment. In R. J. Schneider,

& J. M. Teitelbaum, (Eds.). Research progress report to the Community and Family

Support Center. Washington, DC: Department of Military Psychiatry, Walter Reed

Army Institute of Research.

Van Vranken, E.W., Jellen, L. K., Knudson, K. H. M., Marlowe, D. H., & Segal, M. W.

(1984). The impact of deployment separation on Army families. (WRAIR Report

NP-84-6). Washington, DC: Dept. of Military Psychiatry, Walter Reed Army Institute

of Research.

Wood, S., & Gravino, K.S. (1987). "Waiting wives: suddenly we have so much to say"

Communications with army husbands in the multinational force and observers in the

Sinai. Paper presented at the International Meeting of the Inter University Seminar of

Armed Forces and Society, Chicago, EL.

Wood, S. & Gravino, K. S. (1988). Separation and reunion among wives of Sinai soldiers.

(Unpublished manuscript). Washington, DC: Department of Military Psychiatry,

Walter Reed Army Institute of Research.

Wood, S., Scarville, J., & Gravino, K. S. (1995). Waiting wives: Separation and reunion.

Armed Forces and Society, Winter 21(2), 217-236.

Section B:

Army Family Support During Operations Desert Storm and

Desert Shield (ODS/S)

Bell, D. B. (1990). Family factors in Operation Desert Shield. (Unpublished manuscript).

Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute.

Bell, D. B. (1991). How deployment distress was reduced among families during Operations

Desert Shield and Desert Storm. A paper presented at the 8th Users' Stress

Workshop, San Antonio, TX, 24-27 September.

Bell, D. B. (November, 1991). The impact of Operations Desert Shield/Desert Storm on

Army families: A summary of findings to date. Paper presented at the 53rd annual

conference of the National Council on Family Relations, Denver, CO.

Bell, D. B., & Quigley, B. (1991, August). Family factors in Operations Desert Shield and

Desert Storm. Paper presented at the Military Psychology Divisions Workshop,

American Psychological Association Convention, San Francisco, CA.

Bell, D. B., Tiggle, R. B., & Scarville, J. (1991). Army Family Research Program: Selected

preliminary findings on Army family support during Operation Desert Shield. (ARI

Research Product 91-20). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute. (AD A242

754)

C-2
Caliber Associates (1993a). Study of impact of Operation Desert Shield/Storm (ODS/S) on

Marine Corps families and effectiveness of family support programs in ameliorating

impact: Volume II: Final Report (Contract Number: N00600-91-D-0364). Fairfax,

VA: Author.

Caliber Associates (1993b). Study of impact of Operation Desert Shield/Storm (ODS/S) on

Navy families and effectiveness of family support programs in ameliorating

impact: Volume II: Final Report (Contract Number: N00600-91-D-0364). Fairfax,

VA: Author.

Durand, D. B., Larson, C. L., & Rosenberg, F. R. (1991). Survey of Army thematic analysis

of spouses' comments, Washington DC: Dept. of Military Psychiatry, Walter Reed

Army Institute of Research.

Dyer, Edward L. (1993). 1ST battalion, 37th armor rear detachment operations and family

support group activities during the gulf war. Carlisle Barracks: Army War College.

Elig, T. W. (1993a). 1991/1992 Surveys of Total Army Personnel(STAMP): ARNG officer

responses (Unpublished manuscript). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute

for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Elig, T. W. (1993b). 1991/1992 Surveys of Total Army Personnel(STAMP): ARNG

soldiers responses (Unpublished manuscript). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Griffith, J., & Perry, S. (1993, August). Examination of soldier perceptions of employer

and family conflicts with USAR service, perceptions of quality of unit activities,

and perceptions of individual and unit preparation for combat. Paper presented at

the 101st annual convention of the American Psychological Association, Toronto,

Canada.

Martin, J. A., Vaitkus, M. A., Johnson, M. D., & Mikolajek, L. M. (1991). Desert Storm:

The well-being of Army families in Europe. (Unpublished manuscript). Washington,

DC: Department of Military.

McGee, P. (1991, October). Impact of Operation Desert Shield/Storm on Reserve Component

families. Presented at the Inter-University Seminar on the Armed Forces and Society

convention, Baltimore, MD.

Oliver, L. W. (1991, October). Attitudes of mobilized Army personnel toward leadership,

training, and family issues. Paper presented at the Military Testing Association

Meeting, San Antonio, TX.

Oliver, L. W., Elig, T. W., & Harris, B. C. (1992). The 1991 survey of mobilized reserve

soldiers: Retention, morale, and readiness. (ARI Research Report 1623). Alexandria,

VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. (AD A255

201)

C-3
Perez, J. T. (1990). Operation homefront: for those left behind. (Unpublished manuscript).

North Hollywood, CA: LifePLUS Foundation. (Also presented at the American

Psychological Convention, San Francisco, CA, August, 1991).

Rosen, L. N. (1991, May). Human factors in Operation Desert Shield: The role of family

factors. Paper presented at the Operation Desert Shield Task Force Meeting,

Washington, DC.

Rosenberg, F. R. (1994). Spouses of Reservists and National Guardsmen: A survey of the

effects if Desert Shield/Storm. In D. R. Segal (Ed.) Peace Operations: Workshop

proceedings (ARI Research Report 1670). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research

Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. (AD A292 116)

Schumm, W. R., Bell, D. B., & Tran, G., (1993). Family adaptation to the demands of Army

life: A review of findings (ARI Research Report 1658). Alexandria, VA: U. S.

Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. (AD A285 952)

Teitelbaum, J. M. (Ed.) (1991). Family factors in Operation Desert Shield: Phase I Report.

(Unpublished manuscript). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Community and Family Support

Center.

Teitelbaum, J. M. (1992, April). OPS and Post-ODS divorce and child behavioral

problems. Paper presented at the Office of the Secretary of Defense family

research in-progress review Pentagon, Washington, DC.

Teitelbaum, J. M. (1991, October). Unit level spouse support and generic family

assistance at major Army posts during Operation Desert Shield/Storm. Paper

presented at the Inter-University Seminar on Armed Forces and Society Biennial

International Conference. Baltimore, Maryland.

Teitelbaum, J. M., & Gifford, R. K. (1990). Deployment availability of soldiers for

operation desert shield. Washington, DC: Dept. of Military Psychiatry, Walter Reed

Army Institute of Research.

Thirteenth COSCOM (1990). Thirteenth COSCOM Family Care Survey. (Unpublished

Manuscript). Ft Hood, TX: 13th COSCOM.

U. S. Army Reserve (1990, September). Desert Shield Special Edition. CARNOTES,

VI(IV), 1-7.

USAREUR ODCSPER, (1991, May). USAREUR personnel opinion survey 1991: General

findings report. Vol. 1 (Family) (USAREUR Pamphlet 600-2). Paper presented at the

U.S. Army Walter Reed Institute of Research Professional Seminar, Forest Glen, MD.

U.S. Army War College Class of 1992 (1992). Who Cares? We Do!! Carlisle Barracks, PA:

Department of Command, Leadership, and Management, U.S. Army War College.

C-4
Vaitkus, M., & Johnson, M. (1991, May). USAREUR Family Support Research: Operation

Desert Storm. Paper presented at the U.S. Army Walter Reed Institute of Research

Professional Seminar, Forest Glen, MD.

Westhuis, D. J., Rosen, L. H., & Teitelbaum, J. M. (1991, October). Army families in

CONUS: the impact of Desert Shield and Storm. Presented at the Inter-University

Seminar on the Armed Forces and Society convention, Baltimore, MD.

Winneke, M. S. (Ed.). (1991). The Yellow Ribbon (Army Lessons from the home front

Desert Shield-Desert Storm). (Special Bulletin 91-2). Ft Levenworth, KS: Center for

Army Lessons Learned (CALL), U. S. Army Combined Arms Command (CAC).

Section C:

U.S. Navy Experience with Family Support during Deployments

Archer, R. P., & Cauthorne, C. V. (1986). A final report on an investigation of deployment

related factors on performance and psychosocial adjustment. (Tech. Rep.) Eastern

Virginia Medical School, Department of Psychiatry.

Beck, A. (1980). Feelings of depression in navy wives prior to family separation. Presented

at the Western Psychological Association Convention, Honolulu, HI.

Beckman, K., Marsella, A. J., & Finney, R.(1977). Depression in wives of nuclear submarine

personnel. (Unpublished manuscript). University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI.

Dorn, R. M., Snyder, A. I., & Leonard, J. (1980). Navy marriage: Separations and reunions.

Norfolk Virginia: Community Health Center and Psychiatric Institute.

Heimbaugh, B. (1974). Navy wife of year discusses "long wait." Great Lakes Bulletin, 39,

(37).

Nice, S. D. (1981). A longitudinal analysis of Navy family separation. (Report Number

NPRDC TR 82-15). San Diego, California: Naval Research Center, Navy Personnel

Research and Development Center.

Nice, S. D. (1978). The androgynous wife and the military child. In E.J. Hunter and

D.S. Nice (Eds), Children of Military Families. A part vet apart, (pp 25 -37).

Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

O'Beirne, K. (1976, September). Waiting wives. U.S Naval Proceedings, pp 29-37.

Rosenfeld, J. M. & Rosenstein E. (1973). Sailor families: The nature confidant and effects

of one kind of father absence. Child Welfare, 52, 33-44.

C-5
Snyder, A. I., (1986). The impact of navy deployments: Devising effective interventions.

Paper presented at the 1986 American Psychological Meetings, Washington, DC.

Wilcove, G. L., & Kerce, E. W. (1991). Survey results from the development of the navy

family support conference. (Report No. NPRDC-AP-91-17) San Diego, CA: Navy

Personnel Research and Development Center.

Section D

Other Deployments

Bell, D. B., & Teitelbaum, J. M. (1993, October). Operation Restore Hope: Preliminary

results of a survey of Army spouses at Ft Drum, New York. Paper presented at the

Inter-University Seminar on Armed Forces and Society Biennial Conference,

Baltimore, MD.

Bell, D. B., Teitelbaum, J. M., & Schumm, W. R. (in press). Family support "lessons

learned" in operation Restore Hope (Somalia): An Army mission other than war.

Military Review.

Ender, M. G. (1995) G.I. Phone home: The use of telecommunications by the soldiers of

Operation Just Cause. Armed Forces and Society, 21(3), Spring, 535-454.

Kerner-Hoeg, S. Baker, S., Lomvardias, C, & Towne, L. (1993). Operation Restore HopeSurvey of Army spouses at Fort Drum, New York: Survey methodology and data

book. Fairfax, VA: Caliber Associates.

Lewis, C. S. (1984b). Grenada waiting wives. (Unpublished manuscript). Washington, DC:

Department of Military Psychiatry, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research.

Section E

Other Related Reports

Albano, S. (1994). Military recognition of family concerns: Revolutionary War to 1993.

Armed Forces and Society, Winter 20(2), 283-302.

Amen, D. G, Jellen, L. Merve, E., & Lee, R. E. (1988). Minimizing the impact of

deployment separation on military children: Stages, current prevention efforts, and

system recommendations. Military Medicine, 153 (9) 441-446.

Army Chief of Staff (1983). White paper 1983: The Army family. Washington, DC:

Headquarters, Department of the Army.

Army Family Liaison Office (1995). Some things you might want to know... A resource

booklet for Army family members. (Unpublished manuscript). Washington, DC:

Author.

C-6
Bell, D. B., & Iadeluca, R. B. (1987). The origins of voluntary support for Army family

programs (ARI Research Report 1456). Alexandria, VA: U. S. Army Research

Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. (AD Al90 587)

Blount, W., Curry, A., & Lubin, G. I. (1992, February). Family separation in the military.

Military Medicine, 157, pp 76-80.

Bowen, G. L. (1989). Family adaption to relocation: An empirical analysis of family

Stressors, adaptive resources, and sense of coherence. Research Triangle Park, NC:

Research Triangle Inst.

Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis.

Psychological Bulletin, 98, 310-357.

Coulbaugh, K. W., & Rosenthal, A. (1992). Family separations in the Army. (Contract No.

MDA903-87-C-0540) Research Triangle Park, NC.

Den Dulk, D. E. (1980). Job related stress: Military enforced separation and readjustment.

Paper presented at Groves Conference, Gatlinburg, TN.

Derogatis, L. R, Lipman, R. S., Rickles, K., Uhlenhuth, E. H., & Covi, L. (1974). Hopkins

Symptom Checklist (HSCL): A self-report symptom inventory. Behavioral Science,

Volume XIX, 1-15.

Hobfoll, S. E. (1986). Social support: Research, theory, and applications from research on

women. In S. E. Hobfoll (Ed.), Stress, social support, and women, (pp 239-256).

New York: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation.

Hunter, E. J., & Hickman, R. A. (1981). Family separation and reunion: A style of life in

the military. Arlington, VA: U.S. Navy Research Office.

Jacobs, E. W., & Hicks, M. W. (1987). Periodic family separation: The importance of

beliefs in determining outcomes. Military Family 7 (2) 3-5.

Lavee, Y., McCubbin, H. I., & Patterson, J. M. (1985). The double ABCX model of family

stress and adaptation: An empirical test by analysis of structural equations with latent

variables. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 47, 811-825.

Londoner, C. A. (1982). The silent side of separation. Military Chaplains' Review. (201) 60-

71.

McCubbin, H. I. (1980, Winter). Coping with separation and reunion. Military Chaplains'

Review, DA Pamphlet 165-124, pp 49-58.

McCubbin, H. I. (1977). Predictors of adjustment to separation and reunion. Paper presented

at the Military family Research Conference, San Diego, CA.

C-7
McCubbin, H. I., & Lester, G. R. (1977). Family invulnerability to stress: The role of social

supports in reducing the impact of life changes and family separation upon the military

wife. Paper presented at the VI World Congress of Psychiatry, World Psychiatry

Association, Honolulu, HI.

McCubbin, H. I., & Patterson, J. M. (1983). The family stress process: The double ABCX

model of adjustment and adaption. Marriage and Family Review, Spr-Sum. 6, (1-2),

7-37.

Moghadam, L. Z., & Rosen, L. N. (1990). Perception of the work/family interface and its'

impact on Army reenlistment behavior. (Unpublished manuscript). Washington, DC:

Department of Military Psychiatry, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research.

Montalvo, F. F. (1968). Family separation in the Army: a study of the problems encountered

and the caretaking resources used by career Army families undergoing military

separation. (Unpublished Dissertation). University of Southern California: Los

Angeles, CA.

Moos, R. H. (1991, August). Stress and coping theory and Evaluation research: An

integrated perspective. Paper presented at the Military Psychology Divisions

Workshop, American Psychological Association Convention, San Francisco, CA.

Oliver, N. J. (1984). A network of support. Soldiers, 39 (8) 17-20

Orthner, D. K. (1980). Families in blue: A study of married & single parent families in the

U.S. Air Force. Washington, DC: Department of the Air Force, Office of the Chief

of Chaplains.

Orthner, D. K., Zimmerman, L. I., Bowen, G. L., Gaddy, G., & Bell, D. B. (1991).

Development of a measure of family adaptation to the Army (ARI Technical Report

925). Alexandria,VA: U. S. Army Research Institute. (AD A240 842)

Pearlin, L. I., & Schooler, C. (1978). The structure of coping. Journal of Health and Social

Behavior, 19, 2-22.

U. S. Army Community and Family Support Center (1995). Army Family Team Building.

Alexandria, VA: Author.

C-8