The Implementation Evaluation of the 

Military Spouse Career Advancement Accounts 

Demonstration (2009) 

•	 Part I: Early Implementation of the Military Spouse Career 

Advancement Accounts Demonstration 

Heather Hesketh Zaveri
 

Caterina Pisciotta
 

Linda Rosenberg
 

•	 Part II: Additional Findings from the Military Spouse Career 

Advancement Accounts Demonstration: Implementation 

Progress and Participants’ Characteristics and Plans 

Karen Needels
 

Heather Hesketh Zaveri
 

Submitted to: 

U.S. Department of Labor 

Employment and Training Administration 

200 Constitution Avenue, NW 

Room N-5641 

Washington, DC 20210 

Project Officer: Janet Javar 

Submitted by: 

Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. 

P.O. Box 2393 

Princeton, NJ 08543-2393 

Telephone: (609) 799-3535 

Facsimile: (609) 799-0005 

Project Director: Linda Rosenberg 

THE IMPLEMENTATION EVALUATION OF THE 

MILITARY SPOUSE CAREER ADVANCEMENT 

ACCOUNT DEMONSTRATION 

The implementation evaluation of the Military Spouse Career Advancement Account 

Demonstration describes the early experiences of demonstration sites, the characteristics of 

spouses who received CAAs and their military sponsors, and spouses’ plans for using their 

CAAs as of when they enrolled in the demonstration. The evaluation was a two-pronged 

approach that consisted of a qualitative study on the demonstration sites and an 

accompanying quantitative study of descriptive statistics on a sample of the participants. 

This publication contains two reports, each of which focuses on one of these studies. 

The first report, Part I: Early Implementation of the Military Spouse Career Advancement 

Accounts Demonstration, provides an overview of the demonstration and key findings about the 

demonstration’s partnerships, early implementation experiences, marketing efforts, and other 

topics. The primary information sources for the implementation study were in-depth site 

visits conducted shortly after the start of the demonstration. At most sites, interviews were 

conducted with staff from the state labor or workforce department, the participating 

Workforce Investment Board and the local One-Stop Career Center, and the military 

partner, which usually consisted of the education and family support centers that provide 

support to service members and their families. When possible, evaluation team members 

also observed military spouses’ interactions with demonstration staff, such as orientation 

sessions when military spouses learned about the requirements. Finally, they conducted 

group discussions with participants who had opened CAAs. 

The second report, Part II: Additional Findings from the Military Spouse Career Advancement 

Accounts Demonstration Study, supplements the implementation study by providing additional 

information on implementation issues and quantitative information about the characteristics 

of participants, as well as their plans for using the CAAs for participation in education and 

training programs and the attainment of credentials, licenses, or certifications to support 

careers in high-wage, high-growth occupations. The quantitative analysis used two types of 

data. The first was on the number of CAAs awarded through mid-May 2009, according to 

states’ weekly reports to DOL. Using these data, an analysis provided supplemental 

information about sites’ initial startups and patterns over time in states’ awards of CAAs to 

military spouses, for all states combined, by state, and by industry. The second type of data 

was individual-level data for an analysis of the characteristics of the spouses and their 

sponsors, as well as spouses’ education and training plans for using the CAAs. The data 

included spouses who began their involvement in the demonstration between July 14, 2008, 

and early 2009, which is a portion, but not all, of the spouses who ultimately participated in 

the demonstration. Since most CAA participants had not yet completed training when data 

were collected, information about spouses’ post-training outcomes was not available. 

ABSTRACT 

In 2007, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) and the U.S. Department of Defense 

(DoD) began a joint initiative to support the spouses of military personnel in their pursuit of 

portable postsecondary degrees or industry-recognized credentials. Through the Military 

Spouse (MilSpouse) Career Advancement Account (CAA) Demonstration, eligible spouses 

could obtain an account to pay for career-related education and training. Demonstration 

goals were to (1) help military spouses with careers and (2) encourage the retention of service 

members by increasing families’ satisfaction with military life. Eight states received 

demonstration grants, which were used in substate areas where participating military bases 

and One-Stop Career Centers were located. DOL and DoD established demonstration 

guidelines about the local partnerships to be formed; which military spouses were eligible for 

CAAs; the types of training, education, and credentials that could be funded; the funding 

amount available to each spouse; and the extent of guidance that demonstration staff could 

give to spouses. 

This report presents findings from the implementation evaluation of the Military Spouse 

Career Advancement Account Demonstration. Part I: Early Implementation of the Military 

Spouse Career Advancement Accounts Demonstration provides an overview of the demonstration 

and key findings about the demonstration’s partnerships, early implementation experiences, 

marketing efforts, and other topics. Part II: Additional Findings from the Military Spouse Career 

Advancement Accounts Demonstration Study supplements the earlier report by providing 

additional information on implementation issues and quantitative information about the 

characteristics of participants, as well as their plans for using the CAAs for participation in 

education and training programs and the attainment of credentials, licenses, or certifications 

to support careers in high-wage, high-growth occupations. 
DISCLAIMER 

This report was prepared for the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), Employment and 

Training Administration, Office of Policy Development and Research by Mathematica 

Policy Research, Inc., under contract number DOLJ061A20351. The views expressed are 

those of the authors and should not be attributed to DOL, nor does mention of trade 

names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement of same by the U.S. 

Government. 
PART I: 

Early Implementation of the Military Spouse 

Career Advancement Accounts Demonstration 

February 27, 2009 

Heather Hesketh Zaveri 

Caterina Pisciotta 

Linda Rosenberg 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

We would like to thank many people for their important contributions to this report. 

First and foremost, our thanks go to the many people we interviewed during our site visits to 

the eight states, including the staff from the participating states, local workforce system 

entities, military installations, and educational institutions. We would especially like to thank 

the military spouses who took the time to speak with us about their experiences as spouses 

of military personnel and their views on the opportunities provided through the 

demonstration. We appreciate the thoughtful comments of all with whom we spoke. 

This report has benefited from the ongoing support and guidance of the U.S. 

Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration (ETA) and the U.S. 

Department of Defense (DoD), Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for 

Military Community and Family Policy (MCFP). From the beginning of the study, staff at 

ETA’s Office of Policy Development and Research, particularly the evaluation’s project 

officer, Janet Javar, and Wayne Gordon, have provided ongoing support and feedback. This 

report benefited greatly from their careful review of an earlier version. We also thank Sara 

Gallagher Williams and Christine Ollis from ETA’s Office of Workforce Investment and 

Aggie Byers, Pamela Cunningham, Cathy Flynn, and Mike Tevnan from DoD’s MCFP for 

contributing to our understanding of the demonstration and assisting us in our ongoing 

communications with the sites. 

The authors benefited from a cadre of site visitors including Karen Needels of 

Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., and Steve Kornblatt, Charles McGlew, Rex Hall, and Bill 

Sullivan of Coffey Consulting, LLC. Karen Needels and Jeanne Bellotti carefully reviewed 

an earlier draft of this report, and Donna Dorsey provided exemplary production support. 

We gratefully acknowledge these many contributions. 

Heather Zaveri 

Caterina Pisciotta 

Linda Rosenberg 

 

 


 


 


 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part I Mathematica Policy Research 

CONTENTS 

Chapter Page 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................ xvii 

I INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................. 1 

A. THE MILITARY SPOUSE CAA DEMONSTRATION ................................................. 2 

1. Eight States Participated in the Demonstration ................................................... 2
 

2. Seven Principles Guided MilSpouse CAA Implementation ............................... 5
 

3. A Common Workflow Guided Opening and Managing CAAs ........................ 6 

B. OVERVIEW OF THE EVALUATION ..........................................................................6 

1. Research Questions and Evaluation Overview .................................................... 8
 

2. Implementation Study Methods .............................................................................8 

C. ROADMAP TO REPORT............................................................................................10 

II FORMATION OF PARTNERSHIPS AND COLLABORATIONS...............................11 

A. PARTNERSHIP FORMATION AND CHALLENGES..................................................11 

v 

 

	 


 

	 


 

	 

	 


 


 

	 

	 


 


 


 

	 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part I Mathematica Policy Research 

Chapter Page 

II (continued) 

1. Partners Generally Had Experience Working Together Prior to the 

Demonstration .......................................................................................................13
 

2.	 Strong Partnerships Demonstrated Open Communication, Leadership, 

and Defined Roles .................................................................................................15
 

3.	 Defining a Collaboration Process and Establishing a Communication 

Strategy Were Common Challenges ....................................................................17
 

4. Sites with Less Stable Partnerships Exhibited Tension and Inconsistent 

Views About Partnership Strength......................................................................18 

B.	 PARTNERS’ COLLABORATIONS WITH EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS...................19 

III START-UP AND STAFFING ............................................................................. 21 

A.	 DEMONSTRATION START-UP ................................................................................21 

1. Quick-Starter Sites Benefited from Early Planning ...........................................22
 

2. Delays in Receiving Demonstration Guidelines and Lack of Staff 

Resources Were Common Start-Up Challenges................................................24
 

3. Early Start-Up Pace Was Associated with Later Implementation 

Progress ...................................................................................................................25 

B.	 STAFFING THE DEMONSTRATION ........................................................................25 

1.	 Demonstration Staff Often Had a Military Connection That Was 

Reportedly Useful in Bridging the Military and Workforce Cultures .............25
 

2. Military and Workforce Partners Had Different Staffing Approaches ...........26
 

3. Partners’ Staffing Decisions Depended on Their Responsibilities, 

Available Resources, and Grant Size...................................................................27
 

4.	 Military Partners Lacked Resources, as Did Some Workforce Partners.........29 

vi 
 


 

	 


 


 

	 


 


 

	 


 


 

	 


 

	 


 

	 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part I Mathematica Policy Research 

Chapter Page 

IV INTRODUCING CAREER ADVANCEMENT ACCOUNTS TO POTENTIAL
 

PARTICIPANTS .............................................................................................. 31 

A.	 BROADLY MARKETING THE MILSPOUSE CAA DEMONSTRATION .................31 

1. Marketing Efforts Involved Multiple Partners, but Were Often Led by 

the Military ..............................................................................................................32
 

2. Education Institutions Sought a Role in Marketing, Which Not All Sites 

Welcomed ...............................................................................................................33
 

3. Varied Marketing Strategies Spread the Word About the Demonstration ....33 

B.	 ORIENTING SPOUSES TO THE DEMONSTRATION AND ITS 

EXPECTATIONS.......................................................................................................34 

1. Orientations Introduced the Demonstration to Military Spouses and 

Often Began the Approval Process.....................................................................34
 

2. Orientations Occurred in Locations Convenient for Potential 

Participants..............................................................................................................36
 

3. Most Sites Held Group Orientations; a Few Held Individual Sessions ..........37 

V OPENING AND MANAGING ACCOUNTS......................................................... 39 

A.	 OPENING A CAREER ADVANCEMENT ACCOUNT...............................................40 

1. Military Partners Were Responsible for Approving a Standardized 

Process Form That Guides Account Establishment ........................................40
 

2. Workforce Partners Reviewed the Process Form and Completed 

Enrollment ..............................................................................................................41
 

3.	 Participants Guided Whether They Received Career or Education 

Counseling...............................................................................................................42
 

4.	 Sites Varied in the Time Needed to Complete the CAA Approval 

Process.....................................................................................................................44
 

5.	 Sites Did Not Use a Consistent Definition for Approving or Opening 

an Account..............................................................................................................45 

vii 
	 

	 


 

	 


 

	 
 

	 

	 

	 

	 
 


 


 

	 

	 

V 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part I Mathematica Policy Research 

Chapter Page 

(continued) 

B.	 MANAGING OPEN ACCOUNTS ..............................................................................46 

1.	 All but One Site Used Vouchers to Guide Payments to Education 

Institutions ..............................................................................................................46
 

2.	 Most Sites Easily Established Payment Arrangements with New 

Education Institutions, but Two Faced Challenges ..........................................47
 

3.	 Sites Expected Participants to Maintain Regular Contact with Staff ..............47
 

4. Ongoing Account Management Involved Tracking Funds and 

Renewing and Closing Accounts .........................................................................50 

VI EXPERIENCES OF CAA PARTICIPANTS ......................................................... 53 

A.	 DATA SOURCE AND LIMITATIONS........................................................................54 

B.	 BACKGROUND OF DISCUSSION GROUP PARTICIPANTS ....................................55 

C.	 MILITARY SPOUSES’ PARTICIPATION IN THE DEMONSTRATION .....................55 

1.	 Spouses Participated to Improve Themselves and Their Families ..................56
 

2. Participants Learned About the Demonstration Through the Military’s 

Outreach Efforts ....................................................................................................60
 

3. Participants Appeared Committed to Their Career Choice .............................60
 

4. Participants Had Positive Program Experiences ................................................61 

D.	 PERCEIVED EFFECTS OF THE CAA ON THEIR FAMILIES’ FUTURE .................62 

E.	 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FUTURE ..............................................................63 

viii 
 

	 

	 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part I Mathematica Policy Research 

Chapter Page 

VII SUMMARY AND KEY FINDINGS ..................................................................... 65 

A.	 KEY LESSONS ..........................................................................................................65 

1. Pre-established or Early Partnerships Implemented the Demonstration 

Quickly.....................................................................................................................65 

2. Strong Partnerships Build on Each Partner’s Skills and Experiences .............66 

3. The Demonstration Expanded the Number and Types of Education 

Institutions Partnering with Workforce Agencies .............................................66 

4. Education Institutions That Conduct Outreach Require Oversight ...............66 

5. Even with Account Self-Management, Intensive Staff Time Was 

Required ..................................................................................................................67 

6. Managing CAAs Posed New Accounting Challenges for Workforce 

Partners....................................................................................................................67 

B.	 NEXT STEPS FOR THE CURRENT EVALUATION AND SUGGESTED 

FURTHER RESEARCH..............................................................................................67 

REFERENCES ................................................................................................ 69 

ix 

 


 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part I Mathematica Policy Research 

TABLES

 Table Page 

I.1 MILITARY SPOUSE CAA DEMONSTRATION STATES AND SITES................................. 3 

I.2 MILITARY SPOUSE CAA GRANT FUNDING AND TARGET NUMBER OF 

ACCOUNT AWARDS ........................................................................................................... 4 

II.1 EXPERIENCE AND SKILLS OF DEMONSTRATION PARTNERS ....................................13 

III.1 AVERAGE GRANT OBLIGATIONS FOR STATES EXHIBITING QUICK,
 

MODERATE, AND SLOW START-UP AT THREE POINTS IN TIME ..............................23 

III.2 FTES ALLOCATED TO THE DEMONSTRATION, BY TYPE OF PARTNER...................28 

IV.1 VARIED ROLE OF PARTNERS IN MARKETING EFFORTS............................................32 

IV.2 FORMAT, FREQUENCY, AND PURPOSE OF ORIENTATION SESSIONS.......................35 

V.1 PARTNERS INVOLVED IN CAREER AND EDUCATION COUNSELING .......................44 

V.2 EXPECTATIONS FOR FREQUENCY OF PARTICIPANT FOLLOWUP .............................49 

VI.1 MILITARY SERVICE BRANCHES IN THE DEMONSTRATION AND 

PARTICIPANT DISCUSSIONS ...........................................................................................54 

VI.2 CHARACTERISTICS OF MILITARY SPOUSES IN CAA PARTICIPANT 

DISCUSSIONS ....................................................................................................................56 

xi 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part I Mathematica Policy Research 

FIGURES 

Figure Page 

I.1 MILSPOUSE CAREER ADVANCEMENT ACCOUNTS FLOW DIAGRAM ......................... 7 

xiii 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part I Mathematica Policy Research 

BOXES 

Box Page 

II.1 JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA: STRONG COLLABORATIONS WITH LOCAL
 

SCHOOLS APPEAR TO BENEFIT PARTICIPANTS...........................................................19 

III.1 ONE CAA PARTICIPANT’S APPRECIATION OF DEMONSTRATION STAFF ...............26 

IV.1 GEORGIA: STREAMLINING ENROLLMENT THROUGH THE ORIENTATION ............36 

IV.2 HAWAII: CONDUCTING ORIENTATIONS THROUGH ALTERNATIVE FORMATS ......37 

V.1 IMPLEMENTING FLEXIBILITY IN APPROVING THE PROCESS FORM ........................41 

V.2 BREMERTON, WASHINGTON: FLEXIBILITY AND CONSISTENCY IN 

COUNSELING ...................................................................................................................43 

VI.1 ONE PARTICIPANT’S ERRATIC WORK HISTORY .........................................................57 

VI.2 THE CAA CAN IMPROVE A PARTICIPANT’S SELF-ESTEEM.......................................

VI.3 THE CAA PROVIDES SPOUSES THE OPPORTUNITY AND MOTIVATION 

TO ATTEND SCHOOL ......................................................................................................58 

58 

VI.4 THE CAA CAN EASE THE ANXIETY OF MILITARY LIFE ...........................................59 

VI.5 PARTICIPANTS SAW THE VALUE IN PURSUING PORTABLE CAREERS ......................61 

VI.6 TWO VIEWS OF THE EFFECT OF THE DEMONSTRATION ON FAMILIES’
 

FUTURE WITH THE MILITARY........................................................................................63 

xv 

 


 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part I Mathematica Policy Research 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
 

I

n 2007, the Employment and Training Administration of the U.S. Department of Labor 

(DOL) and the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) began a joint initiative to support 

the spouses of military personnel (“military spouses”) in their pursuit of portable 

postsecondary degrees or industry-recognized credentials. Although military spouses tend to 

have more education than their civilian counterparts, they are generally employed at lower 

rates, in part as a result of the deployments and frequent moves common to families with a 

member in the military (Harrell et al. 2004; Lim et al. 2007; Savych 2008). 

Through the Military Spouse (MilSpouse) Career Advancement Accounts (CAAs) 

Demonstration, eligible military spouses can obtain an account to pay for education and 

technical training that will aid them in their careers. The theory underlying the 

demonstration is that attainment of a portable degree or credential will help military spouses 

enter and advance in the workforce even as their family relocates to other duty stations. A 

longer-term goal of the demonstration is to encourage the retention of the service member 

by improving the military spouse’s job prospects and increasing the family’s satisfaction with 

military life. 

DOL contracted with Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. (MPR) to conduct an 

implementation study of the demonstration, with the support of Coffey Consulting, LLC. 

This report details the findings of that study. After providing an overview of the 

demonstration and study, this summary presents key findings on (1) the demonstration’s 

partnerships and collaborations, (2) early implementation and staffing, (3) marketing efforts, 

(4) account management, and (5) participants’ experiences. The summary concludes with 

overarching lessons and next steps for the evaluation. 

The Demonstration and Study 

In fall 2007, eight state workforce agencies received a grant to implement the MilSpouse 

CAA Demonstration: California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Maine, North 

Carolina, and Washington. CAAs are offered only in selected areas in these states, where the 

participating military bases and the One-Stop Career Centers, which provide employment 

and training services as part of the nation’s public workforce system, are located. For 

xvii 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part I Mathematica Policy Research 

purposes of this study, MPR identified 11 sites in which the 18 lead military bases partnered 

with One-Stop Career Centers to provide CAAs. 

The Demonstration 

Each state provided grant funding to the participating One-Stop Career Center(s) to 

fund and manage participants’ accounts. The participating military bases did not receive 

funding to support their role in the demonstration, which typically focused on marketing the 

demonstration, providing education and career counseling to interested military spouses, and 

confirming that applicants met the military criteria for eligibility. 

In addition to directing the military and workforce entities to develop partnerships in 

the local area, DOL and DoD established six other demonstration guidelines: 

1.	 To be eligible for a CAA, a military spouse must (1) be married to a service 

member of any rank who has a minimum of one year left at the current duty 

assignment, and (2) have a high school diploma or General Educational 

Development credential at the time he or she applies. 

2.	 Participants could pursue education and training programs, and ultimately 

careers, only in nationally recognized high-growth and high-demand fields 

specified by DOL and DoD. Within those specified fields, however, they could 

select any education or training program that was nationally or regionally 

accredited by the U.S. Department of Education (or an accrediting body 

recognized by the Department of Education) or that was on the state’s 

Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Eligible Training Provider List. 

3.	 The CAAs are restricted to paying the tuition for education and training 

programs and related expenses, such as books, equipment, and credentialing and 

licensing fees. 

4.	 As the demonstration rolled out in 2007, each CAA had a maximum value of 

$3,000 in each of two consecutive years. This policy changed after the 

implementation study concluded its data collection. As of December 2008, 

participants in five states can spend their $6,000 allotment as they incur 

expenses during the two-year period or until the end of the grant period in June 

2010, whichever is first. 

5.	 The CAA-funded education or training program must result in a postsecondary 

degree or industry-recognized portable credential. 

6.	 Within the limitations set by the preceding principles, CAA recipients make 

their own decisions, with limited staff involvement, about how to use their 

accounts. 

xviii 
 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part I Mathematica Policy Research 

Sites used a common set of steps to open and manage participants’ accounts. The first 

four steps—orientation sessions, assessing for military eligibility, identifying education needs, 

and completing the CAA approval process—comprise opening an account. The remaining 

steps—ongoing followup, renewing the account, and completing education—occur 

throughout the period of account management. 

The Implementation Study 

Data collection for the implementation study consisted of in-depth site visits six to eight 

months after the start of the demonstration. The implementation study team found sites at 

different points in their program implementation, and none had CAAs that were ready to be 

renewed for a second year. 

During each visit, the implementation study team attempted to conduct a common set 

of data collection activities to ensure a consistent and thorough understanding of the 11 

sites. Interview respondents included demonstration staff representing the workforce 

partner, which generally consisted of the state labor or workforce department, the 

participating Workforce Investment Board (WIB) and the local One-Stop Career Center, and 

the military partner, which generally consisted of the education and the family support 

centers that provide support to service members and their families. When possible, team 

members observed military spouses’ interactions with demonstration staff, such as 

orientation sessions when military spouses learned about the requirements. Finally, they 

conducted group discussions with participants who had opened a CAA. 

During the analysis phase, the implementation study team looked across data sources to 

pursue three main goals: (1) complete detailed descriptions of each site’s demonstration 

implementation; (2) conduct a cross-site analysis to identify themes and patterns in 

implementation across the states and sites; and (3) identify implementation strategies and 

creative solutions to challenges that other sites might find helpful as they provide CAAs to 

military spouses. Analysis occurred at the site level by comparing and contrasting 

implementation at the 11 sites. 

The Demonstration’s Partnerships and Collaborations 

Building partnerships between military and workforce entities was a cornerstone of this 

demonstration from both a design and an operational perspective. At the federal level, DOL 

and DoD partnered to design and carry out the demonstration. At the local level, DOL and 

DoD emphasized military and workforce partnerships to capitalize on the specific skills, 

knowledge, concrete systems, and perspectives that each partner brought to the initiative, 

gained through their experience of providing education and workforce services. While some 

of their areas of expertise overlap, each partner offered a range of relevant, and sometimes 

unique, experience and skills. The military offered its experience providing education and 

career/employment services, working with the military spouse population, and collaborating 

with education institutions. Partners from the workforce system brought experience 

operating employment and training programs, connecting with local employers to help 

customers obtain jobs, and administering training funds. 

xix 
 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part I Mathematica Policy Research 

Demonstration sites that formed solid partnerships between the military and workforce 

entities exhibited common characteristics, while sites with unstable partnerships exhibited 

common issues. In strong partnerships, partners were open to discussing problems and 

demonstrated an ability to resolve problems as they arose; relied on the strong and 

supportive leadership that emanated from either the military or the workforce partner; and 

reported the importance of clearly defined roles and responsibilities, especially early on, to 

mitigate unintended duplication of effort and to minimize the possibility of sending mixed 

messages to potential CAA participants. In addition, partners were able to work through 

such common challenges as defining a collaborative process and establishing a 

communication strategy. Three sites struggled to establish solid relationships among 

partners, and two sources of these challenges were (1) questions about which partner should 

be leading the demonstration, and (2) inconsistent views of the partnership and its strength. 

In all sites, the demonstration benefited from long-standing pre-existing relationships 

that partners had with local schools. Schools often had on-base representatives at the 

education centers to provide educational assistance to military members and their families. 

Some schools even offered classes on base. The workforce systems also had pre-existing 

relationships with schools, primarily through the experience of the WIB and the One-Stop 

Career Centers in opening and managing WIA customers’ individual training accounts 

(ITAs), the main source of training funds under WIA. As a result, partners possessed indepth knowledge about local education programs, and this enabled demonstration staff from 

both the workforce and the military partners to make quick and efficient connections 

between potential CAA participants and school staff. However, while school involvement 

had benefits, it also had drawbacks, which led some partners to limit schools’ activities to 

market the demonstration. 

Early Start-Up Experiences of Demonstration Sites 

After on-site training from DOL and DoD in October 2007, sites were to have begun 

demonstration implementation quickly, with a goal of some participants attending education 

or training programs by January 2008. Some were able to meet this expectation; others 

required more time to become fully operational. Analysis of sites’ start-up phase provides 

important information about the successes and challenges they faced during this time. Startup pace appears important, as it was generally associated with later implementation progress. 

The pace of start-up varied significantly across states. Two states had a particularly 

quick start-up phase: they obligated nearly 6 percent of their total grant award as of 

February 4, 2008, and they continued at this rapid pace, with nearly 20 percent of funds 

obligated only one month later (DOL/DoD 2008). Administrators from the two sites with 

quick start-up attributed their pace to early planning facilitated by (1) pre-existing 

relationships between military and workforce partners, as well as educational institutions; 

and (2) an early and active interest in the demonstration. Two states exhibited a slow startup phase—obligating only about 1 percent of their total grant award by February 4 as well as 

one month later. The third group of four states implemented the demonstration at a 

moderate pace; they had awarded a relatively modest number of accounts by early February, 

but gained momentum by the next month. 

xx 
 

 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part I Mathematica Policy Research 

Site-specific challenges posed start-up problems for at least four sites, two of which had 

a moderate start-up pace. In one of these moderate-paced sites, partners reported that the 

military lacked sufficient resources and staff to begin work on the demonstration 

immediately. While workforce partners had access to some demonstration funds for 

staffing, military partners had to leverage existing resources. In another moderate-paced site, 

the staffing structure appeared to delay start-up, as the state engaged in a lengthy negotiation 

process for grant operations with one of their two One-Stop Career Centers. 

Key to early implementation was devising and implementing a staffing approach. Staff 

from workforce and military partners each devoted time to the demonstration, but the 

amount of time spent by partners depended on site needs, contextual site factors (such as 

the size of the grant or the number of participating bases in a site), and the amount of time 

staff had available. The workforce staff tended to spend more time on the demonstration 

than military partners because of the nature of their demonstration responsibilities, as well as 

their access to grant funds that could be used for staffing purposes. It is anticipated that 

staffing patterns will change over the life of the demonstration, particularly as sites shift 

some of their emphasis from enrolling new participants—an activity that involves both 

military and workforce staff—to tracking existing participants, which involves primarily 

workforce staff. 

Staffing challenges were most common for the military partner. Military staff involved 

in the demonstration often had to divide their time between their regular work and 

demonstration work, which led them to report an overload of work. In addition, there 

appeared to be a difference in the perspective of and impact on staff from the military’s 

education and family support centers, seemingly related to variation in the perceived mission 

of the two types of centers. Family support centers viewed their mission and goal as serving 

the military family as a whole (including members, spouses, children, and so on). Staff from 

education centers described their primary focus as serving military members, though not to 

the exclusion of military families. 

Marketing Efforts and Orientations 

Each of the demonstration sites embarked on marketing efforts to inform potential 

participants of the demonstration. Military partners often led the effort to inform their 

military community about who was eligible, what occupations would be funded, and what 

the timing of available funds would be. A variety of marketing efforts was used, including 

disseminating written materials on bases and placing advertisements in base newspapers and 

on base television stations. Military partners also described the demonstration during 

briefings for new and existing families. With time, sites viewed word of mouth as an 

increasingly helpful way of marketing the demonstration. 

After introducing spouses to the demonstration through their marketing efforts, sites 

held more formal and in-depth orientations, where spouses could get answers to their 

questions and possibly speak individually with military or workforce demonstration staff. 

Orientations were usually held at the military bases and involved staff from both the base 

and the One-Stop Career Center. In a small number of sites, representatives from education 

institutions also attended group orientations to serve as a resource for spouses. In addition, 

xxi 
 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part I Mathematica Policy Research 

in seven sites, orientations served as the first step in receiving CAA approval, though it was 

rare that all steps could be completed to fully open an account during orientation. Formats 

included group and individual settings, and many sites offered group orientations on a set 

schedule along with opportunities for individual orientation to address scheduling needs for 

some participants. 

Administration of Accounts 

Responsibilities for opening an account were typically shared between the workforce 

and military partners, while the workforce partners assumed much, if not all, of the 

responsibility of managing the account once it was open. 

Opening Accounts. DOL and DoD developed a standardized process form that 

guided the steps for enrolling in the demonstration and opening a CAA. As part of the first 

step, the interested military spouse completed the form and then a member of the military 

staff, typically the commander’s designee, certified the potential participant’s military 

eligibility for the demonstration. In the second step, One-Stop Career Center demonstration 

staff received the military-approved process form, filled in information on the servicing 

One-Stop Career Center, and noted whether the account was awarded and, if it was, the 

award amount. The One-Stop Career Center staff then faxed the completed form to the 

education support office for DoD, called Defense Activity for Non-Traditional Education 

Support (DANTES). 

Depending on the site, workforce partners asked applicants to provide a variety of 

documents. Frequently, the papers mirrored what was asked of persons receiving an ITA, 

such as documentation of citizenship or right to work and proof of selective service 

enrollment. In addition, One-Stop Career Centers in at least seven sites required that 

potential participants submit an education plan to supplement information on the process 

form. The format of the education plan was not standardized, and content varied across 

sites. Generally, the purpose of the education plan was to document the participant’s 

program and ensure that plans aligned with the demonstration’s guidelines. 

In accordance with the demonstration’s self-managed account principle, potential 

participants could—but were not required to—receive career or education counseling. All 

demonstration sites suggested that some portion of their potential participants needed and 

received this guidance; staff across sites estimated that this portion ranged from 15 to 85 

percent. When provided to these participants, counseling typically occurred as the potential 

participant completed the process form, but it could also be provided if the participant 

wanted to switch career fields or training programs, or if the workforce partner expressed 

concern with the initially identified plan. A unique aspect of this demonstration was that 

staff from multiple organizations were qualified to provide, and often did provide, career or 

education counseling to potential participants. Staff from the education centers and family 

support centers on military bases and from the One-Stop Career Center had experience 

providing education and career counseling in their other non-demonstration responsibilities. 

In addition, staff at education institutions had skills in counseling people on career paths and 

training options. 

xxii 
MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part I Mathematica Policy Research 

Managing Accounts. Once approved and opened, CAAs progressed to the 

management stage. Accounts can be open for up to two years, during which management 

transitions through different phases. Managing open accounts involved (1) developing 

systems for issuing payments to training programs; (2) tracking participants with open 

accounts to ensure that they remain in good standing with their training program; and (3) 

handling processes such as renewing accounts for a second year, closing accounts when 

participants drop out of or complete training, and de-obligating funding when participants 

use less money than was originally obligated. 

After approving the participant’s CAA, the workforce partner issued payment to the 

selected education institution. All but one of the demonstration sites used their existing 

processes for issuing ITA payments, where the One-Stop Career Center paid the education 

institution’s invoice. The one exception was the site where the grantee was not the state 

workforce agency. This site did not have prior experience issuing payments of this nature to 

education institutions and developed a reimbursement system requiring participants to pay 

their tuition and then be reimbursed by the education institution. 

Many sites were quite open to developing payment arrangements with any eligible 

school, and payment problems appeared to be isolated and quickly resolved. However, staff 

in at least one site described their awareness of the slow and bureaucratic process to 

establish new arrangements and in some cases were apparently unable to resolve payment 

challenges with new schools. Another site described a problem with issuing payments to the 

local community colleges, but eventually the workforce partner met with these colleges to 

clear up certain miscommunications that had reportedly caused the difficulty. 

Demonstration sites emphasized their need to remain in regular contact with 

participants while they attended training programs. Interview respondents stated that 

ongoing contact enables sites to monitor training progress, so that future payments can be 

approved. This contact also allows maintenance of a relationship that supports the military 

or workforce partner staff providing job search assistance, and it should allow them to track 

participants’ subsequent employment status. Although DOL and DoD did not set forth 

expectations for how frequently followup was to occur, all sites developed expectations for 

regular, ongoing contact that ranged from semi-weekly to once each term. 

As participants continued to attend training programs, demonstration sites managed a 

growing number of open accounts. A critical aspect of account management was tracking 

available demonstration funds. In planning, sites estimated the number of CAAs they 

expected to fund during the course of the demonstration, but they still had to maintain an 

accurate tracking of (1) their obligated funding, and (2) their actual payments to training 

institutions. The main reasons for these two levels of tracking were to ensure that prior 

obligations could be met and to remain aware of how many more CAAs could be awarded. 

Sites tracked CAA funds with two systems, developing their own tracking mechanisms, 

typically an Excel spreadsheet, in addition to their existing fiscal management tools. The 

dual-systems sites were limited in how well they could track funds paid out for a participant, 

or for the demonstration as a whole, which created a challenge when calculating remaining 

funds for new participants. 

xxiii 
 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part I Mathematica Policy Research 

At the time of the visits, sites had little if any experience with renewing or closing 

CAAs, as participants were still in their first year of training. In summer 2008, all 

demonstration sites anticipated that they would need to begin renewing CAAs in early 2009 

to allow participants to access their next $3,000. At the time of the site visits, sites indicated 

they were likely to institute few additional steps for renewal, but did expect participants to be 

in good academic standing. Sites described three plans for how they would close 

participants’ accounts. One was to close the account after the participant used available 

funding and obtained the certification/degree; a second was to keep the account open until 

the participant was employed; the third was to close the account after the site completed 

followup on the participant’s employment outcomes. 

Participants’ Experiences 

To gain understanding of military spouses’ experiences in and perspectives on the 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration, the implementation study team held group discussions with 

spouses in each of the 11 sites. Although the discussions were informative, the findings are 

not conclusive, because (1) spouses were not randomly selected to participate in the 

discussions, (2) participants were still in their education programs and could only surmise 

how they would use their credential and how the CAA would affect their family’s future, and 

(3) only three groups of military spouses who might have been interested in a CAA but did 

not receive one were convened. Although they were not randomly selected to participate, 

the discussion participants appeared to be typical of a spouse served by the demonstration. 

The typical group discussion participant was a 31-year-old woman with an average of 1.8 

children, and most of the participants with children had a least one child under the age of 13. 

Across the 11 discussions, military spouses expressed five common reasons for 

participating. First, they were interested in improving their career options as they moved 

from base to base. Second, though they were accustomed to putting their spouses and 

children first, the CAA provided an opportunity for them to do something for themselves. 

Third, they jumped at the chance to further their education, which they might have put off 

because of their families or the cost. Fourth, they wanted to relieve their service member 

spouses of the burden of being the sole financial support of the family. Finally, participating 

provided a positive distraction while their spouses were deployed. 

Participants were positive about their experiences in the demonstration. Many learned 

about it through information provided by the military partner to the active duty personnel or 

through advertisements at base centers or newspapers. Participants tended to be supportive 

of the demonstration’s focus on portable careers, though they also suggested that more 

flexibility be given to participants’ career interests. With few exceptions, participants spoke 

highly of the demonstration staff available to guide their choice of career and education 

programs. 

While participants could not predict how the CAA would affect their futures, most 

believed that their participation would have positive effects on their families. They felt that 

attending school and eventually being able to provide additional financial support to their 

families set a good example for their children and improved their relationships with their 

spouses. However, participants did not offer consistent views on how they felt the 

xxiv 
 

 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part I Mathematica Policy Research 

demonstration would affect their families’ decisions on whether or not to remain tied to the 

military. Although the group discussions could not produce estimates of the number of 

participants likely to remain with the military as a result of the CAAs or provide insight into 

the types of families that were more likely to remain, they illustrated two different attitudes. 

One set of participants said that the demonstration would help them prepare for civilian life 

when their spouse retired. The participant’s ability to establish a career as a result of the 

credential obtained through the demonstration would provide family income at the point 

that the service member spouse pursued a non-military career. A second set of participants 

said that their increased satisfaction from obtaining a credential and establishing a career 

would enable their spouse to remain in the military. In this view, the service member spouse 

would remain attached as a result of the military spouse’s rewarding and fulfilling career. 

Summary and Future Study 

Analyzing across aspects of early implementation resulted in several lessons about 

replicating this demonstration and for forming partnerships between the military and 

workforce system more broadly. 

Pre-established or Early Partnerships Implemented the Demonstration Quickly. 

Early establishment of partnerships and collaborations fostered a quick start-up, a goal set by 

DOL and DoD. In several sites, the partnerships had been formed through earlier joint 

efforts, and sites used these relationships to proactively plan for implementing this 

demonstration. Other sites found that forging these relationships quickly contributed to 

successful implementation. Face-to-face interactions, particularly discussions about how 

each entity would contribute to implementation and how workflow would occur, helped 

solidify partnerships. 

Strong Partnerships Built on Each Partner’s Skills and Experiences. Sites formed 

the needed partnerships between the military and workforce partners using the strengths and 

experience of each partner. Using their prior experiences working with military families, 

military partners conducted marketing efforts and also cultivated word-of-mouth marketing, 

approaches that participants also mentioned when asked how they learned about the 

demonstration. The workforce partner brought experience providing training services to 

customers through WIA and ITAs, a familiar system for some of the main education 

providers. The workforce partner also brought linkages to employers and experiences with 

job search assistance and placement. 

The Demonstration Expanded the Number and Types of Education Institutions 

Partnering with Workforce Agencies. With eligible training institutions defined so 

broadly, participants could select from a wide range. One result of the broad definition was 

that sites, particularly the workforce partners, expanded the education institutions with 

which they had relationships to include those with online and distance learning programs 

available through military bases. Most sites were agreeable to developing these new 

relationships, though they required staff time up front to develop payment procedures. A 

few sites exhibited some resistance to developing these new relationships, which was related 

to delays in negotiating a payment process. 

xxv 
 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part I Mathematica Policy Research 

Education Institutions That Conduct Outreach Require Oversight. Education 

institutions could serve not only as centers of learning for the participants, but also as 

collaborators in marketing efforts. Some sites welcomed this marketing assistance, while 

others dissuaded education institutions from directly advertising the demonstration to 

potential participants. When education institutions marketed the demonstration, staff from 

either the workforce or the military partner had to oversee their efforts to ensure that an 

accurate portrayal of the demonstration was provided. 

Even with Account Self-Management, Intensive Staff Time Was Required. Staff 

at sites found that the demonstration required significant time to fulfill the stated 

expectations, including marketing, assisting potential participants in selecting a career field or 

training program and opening accounts, and ongoing account management. In group 

discussions, participants remarked on the amount of time staff spent assisting them during 

enrollment. In some cases, the necessary staff resources exceeded initial plans by the 

workforce partner. Further, staff from military partners expressed concern that they did not 

receive funding for the demonstration, yet they had to supply staff time, which they 

accomplished by asking military staff to add demonstration responsibilities to their existing 

workloads. Because military staff involved in the demonstration had to divide their time 

between their regular work and demonstration work, they reported being overloaded and 

having to make accommodations in their workflow to complete CAA work. 

Managing CAAs Posed New Accounting Challenges for Workforce Partners. For 

the workforce partner, managing accounts introduced a new set of challenges, which 

required time to address and resolve. Most significantly, sites had to track the funds 

promised and provided to CAA participants. Two separate categories required 

monitoring—obligations and actual spending—and sites often developed multiple systems in 

their attempt to track this information. Staff spent time resolving differences between 

systems and ensuring that accurate and appropriate information was reported and recorded. 

This report discusses sites’ progress in implementing the MilSpouse CAA 

Demonstration and providing education and training opportunities to military spouses. 

However, several questions remain about the demonstration’s success at meeting its primary 

objectives—assisting military spouses’ entry into portable careers and retaining families in 

the military. The final report of this current study, to be provided to DOL in mid-2009, will 

analyze data collected from sites about their participants’ characteristics and their education 

and training programs. Since the data will pertain to participants enrolled from July 2008 

through February 2009, many will still be participating in their education program by the 

time the data are analyzed. Further research will be necessary to fully assess participants’ 

short- and long-term outcomes, including whether the demonstration has affected their 

ability to maintain their portable careers and their families’ future with the military. 

xxvi 
 


 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part I Mathematica Policy Research 

CHAPTER I 

INTRODUCTION
 

I

n 2007, the Employment and Training Administration of the U.S. Department of Labor 

(DOL) and the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) began a joint initiative to support 

the spouses of military personnel (“military spouses”) in their pursuit of portable 

postsecondary degrees or industry-recognized credentials. Although military spouses tend to 

have more education than their civilian counterparts, they are generally employed at lower 

rates, in part as a result of the deployments and frequent moves common to families with a 

member in the military (Harrell et al. 2004; Lim et al. 2007; Savych 2008). 

Through the Military Spouse (MilSpouse) Career Advancement Accounts (CAAs) 

Demonstration, eligible military spouses can obtain an account to pay for education and 

technical training that will aid them in their careers. The theory underlying the 

demonstration is that a portable degree or credential funded with a CAA will help military 

spouses enter and advance in the workforce even as they relocate when their service member 

spouses transfer to other bases. A longer-term goal of the demonstration is to encourage the 

retention of the service member by improving his or her spouse’s job prospects and 

increasing the satisfaction of the entire family with life in the military. 

DOL contracted with Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. (MPR) and Coffey Consulting, 

LLC, to conduct an evaluation of the demonstration.1

 The objectives that DOL defined, in 

collaboration with DoD, are (1) to inform DOL and DoD about early implementation 

experiences, challenges, and promising practices for successful implementation; and (2) to 

provide information about participant characteristics, service use, and outcomes, as reported 

by grantees through a demonstration-wide data collection tool designed by the evaluation 

team. 

1 DOL contracted with MPR to lead the evaluation. Coffey Consulting received a separate contract to 

support MPR in conducting the evaluation by designing a data collection tool (with guidance from MPR), 

providing technical assistance to demonstration sites on using the tool, and conducting several site visits to 

assess demonstration implementation (following MPR site visit guidelines). 

1 
MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part I Mathematica Policy Research 

This report presents findings from implementation study site visits conducted to 

support the first study objective. This introductory chapter provides an overview of the 

demonstration (Section A) and presents the research questions guiding the evaluation and 

the site visit effort (Section B). Section C presents a roadmap to the remaining chapters in 

the report. To support the second objective, MPR will analyze individual-level data relevant 

to the demonstration. A report focusing on these quantitative data will be provided to DOL 

in spring 2009. 

A. The Military Spouse CAA Demonstration 

DOL and DoD designed the MilSpouse CAA Demonstration as a partnership between 

selected military bases and nearby One-Stop Career Centers that provide employment and 

training services as part of the nation’s public workforce system. DoD identified military 

bases that would participate, and then DOL identified nearby One-Stop Career Centers that 

would serve as partners to recruit spouses and manage their CAAs. The demonstration 

officially began in fall 2007 when DOL awarded MilSpouse CAA Demonstration grants to 

eight states. In seven of them, the state’s department of labor received the award; in one 

state, the award went to the governor’s office of workforce development. By design, the 

state office was to provide funding to the selected One-Stop Career Center; the participating 

military bases did not receive funding to support their demonstration role. Depending on 

the partnership, One-Stop Career Centers work with military spouses attached to one or 

several branches of the military. All participating One-Stop Career Centers and military 

bases implement CAA guidelines, aligning with seven guiding principles, and all follow a 

common workflow. The demonstration runs until June 2010. 

1. Eight States Participated in the Demonstration 

Eight states received a grant to implement the MilSpouse CAA Demonstration: 

California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington 

(Table I.1). CAAs are offered only in selected areas in these states, where the participating 

military bases and the One-Stop Career Centers attached to them are located. In four 

states—California, Florida, Hawaii, and Washington—two One-Stop Career Centers 

participate in the demonstration; in each of the other four states, a single One-Stop Career 

Center participates. One or two lead military bases collaborate with each One-Stop Career 

Center. For purposes of the implementation study, in all states except Hawaii, a “site” 

consists of a One-Stop Career Center and the military bases that collaborate with it for the 

demonstration. Although two One-Stop Career Centers participate in Hawaii, the study 

counts it as only one site because of the centers’ proximity to each other on the island of 

Oahu. In total, the implementation study looks at 11 sites. 

2 
 

	 

	 

	 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part I Mathematica Policy Research 

Table I.1. Military Spouse CAA Demonstration States and Sites 

Site Visit State One-Stop Career Center/City Lead Base(s)/Education Center Date 

CA North County Coastal Center, 

Oceanside 

CA San Diego South Metro Career Center, 

San Diego 

CO	 Pikes Peak Workforce Center, 

Colorado Springs 

FL Military Family Employment Liaison 

Jobs Plus, Fort Walton Beach 

FL Military Family Employment Advocate 

WorkSource One-Stop Center, 

Jacksonville 

GA Columbus Career Center, Columbus 

HIa Oahu Works Links-Dillingham Office, 

Honolulu 

Oahu Works Links-Waipahu Office, 

Waipahu 

ME BRAC Transition Center, Brunswick 

NC Cumberland County Workforce 

Development Center (JobLink), 

Fayetteville 

WA	 WorkSource Center Serving Kitsap 

County, Bremerton 

WA	 WorkSource Center Serving Pierce 

County, Tacoma 

Camp Pendleton/Joint Education 

Center 

Naval Base San Diego/Navy College 

Office 

Fort Carson/Mountain Post Training 

and Education Center 

Peterson AFB/Base Education Office 

Eglin AFB/Education Office 

Hurlburt AFB/Education Office 

Jacksonville NAS/Navy College Office 

Fort Benning/Army Continuing 

Education System Division 

Hickam AFB/Force Development Flight 

Kaneohe Bay/Joint Education Center 

Pearl Harbor/Navy College Office 

Schofield Barracks/Army Education 

Center 

Brunswick/Navy College Office 

Fort Bragg/Education Services Division 

Pope AFB/Education Office 

Bremerton/Navy College Office 

Fort Lewis/Stone Education Center 

McChord AFB/Education and Training 

Office 

August 6-7 

August 4-6 

June 24-26 

June 2-4 

July 22-23 

August 26-27 

July 21-24 

May 7-8 

July 28-30 

May 19-20 

July 7-9 

a

The study treats Hawaii as one site even though two One-Stop Career Centers provide services. 

Across these 11 sites, the One-Stop Career Centers partnered with 18 lead military bases 

(6 Air Force, 5 Army, 2 Marine Corps, and 5 Navy installations).2

 Most installations 

involved, in some way, both their education center, which primarily helps service members 

2 In some sites, nearby bases have links to the lead bases, and families stationed at those installations are 

also eligible to participate in the demonstration. In total, spouses from 36 bases are eligible to receive a CAA. 

3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part I Mathematica Policy Research 

further their education, and their family support center, which provides general and 

employment-related support services to service members and their families. These centers 

are referred to by different names, depending upon the branch of the service.3 

The states involved in the MilSpouse CAA Demonstration received grants ranging in 

size from $10,115,998 (California) to $750,000 (Maine) (Table I.2). Each state projected the 

total number of CAAs that it planned to award throughout the grant period. The state with 

the largest grant, California, planned to award the most (2,466), while the state with the 

smallest grant, Maine, planned to award 250. 

Table I.2. Military Spouse CAA Grant Funding and Target Number of Account Awards 

Total Grant Target Number of CAAs 

State Amount to Be Awarded 

California $10,115,998 2,466a 

Colorado $2,193,870 643 

Florida $4,405,196 1,031a 

Georgia $4,593,276 719 

Hawaii $2,450,000 638 

Maine $750,000 250 

North Carolina $6,953,639 1,000b 

Washington $3,738,061 897a 

Total $35,200,040 7,644 

Source: State MilSpouse demonstration implementation plans, fall 2008. 

a

The target number of CAAs is an aggregation of the two sites in the state.

b

North Carolina decreased its target number of CAAs to 800 in August 2008. 

3 The military’s voluntary education program constitutes one of the world’s largest continuing education 

programs. Service members enroll in postsecondary courses leading to associate’s, bachelor’s, master’s, and 

doctorate degrees. Each installation has an education center with professional staff who provide counseling 

and testing to service members and their family members to help them further their education. Each service 

branch uses a distinct name for its education center: Army Continuing Education System/Army Education 

Centers; Air Force Voluntary Education/Air Force Education Centers; Navy College Office; and Lifelong 

Learning/Lifelong Learning Office/Education Centers (Marines). Bases in each service branch also operate 

family support centers that offer transition support services, general employment services, resume and 

employment workshops, career interest inventories, and counseling and therapy for individuals and families. 

Service branches use specific names for their family support centers: Army Community Services; Airman and 

Family Readiness Center (Air Force); Fleet and Family Support Center (Navy); and Marine and Family Services. 

4 
 

 

	 

	 

	 

	 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part I Mathematica Policy Research 

2. Seven Principles Guided MilSpouse CAA Implementation 

States were encouraged to be innovative in their delivery of CAA services, but they were 

required to follow seven principles when implementing CAAs: 

1.	 Collaboration Between Workforce and Military Partners. The 

demonstration is intended to be a partnership between the local public 

workforce entities—the local Workforce Investment Board (WIB) and OneStop Career Center—and the military bases. The One-Stop Career Centers 

and the military bases are jointly responsible for conducting outreach to 

potential participants; for using DoD and DOL criteria to screen for eligibility; 

and for collaborating to provide coordinated workforce and economic 

information, career and education guidance, skills assessment, and other 

related resources and services. 

2.	 Eligibility Limited to Specific Military Spouses. To be eligible for a CAA, 

military spouses must be married to a member/sponsor who has a minimum 

of one year of duty assignment left at the demonstration base. The exception 

is for assignments that will require relocation as part of the Base Realignment 

and Closure Act of 2005 (BRAC) or the selection of training that can be 

completed prior to departure from the assigned base and that results in a 

license or certification. In addition, spouses must have at least a high school 

diploma or General Educational Development (GED) credential at the time 

they apply. Initially, DoD and DOL restricted eligibility to military spouses 

married to a service member/sponsor who was at the E1-E4 levels (junior 

enlisted service members), E5 level (noncommissioned officer), or O1-O3 

levels (junior commissioned officers). In April 2008, this restriction was lifted 

and military spouses of service members of all ranks became eligible. 

3.	 Selected Training and Education Programs Must Meet Demonstration 

Criteria. DOL and DoD required participants to pursue education and 

training programs, and ultimately careers, in nationally recognized high-growth 

and high-demand fields. Originally, five fields were identified: financial 

services, information technology, health care, education, and construction. In 

April 2008, DOL and DoD authorized the issuance of CAAs for specific 

occupations in four additional sectors: human resources, hospitality, homeland 

security, and business administration. DOL and DoD further expanded the 

list of eligible occupations in December 2008. Military spouses can select any 

education or training program appropriate for an allowed field or occupation, 

as long as the program is nationally or regionally accredited by the U.S. 

Department of Education (or an accrediting body recognized by the 

Department of Education) or on the state’s Workforce Investment Act (WIA) 

Eligible Training Provider List. 

4.	 CAAs Are to Be Used Primarily for Education or Training. CAAs are 

used only (1) to fund tuition for education and training programs and related 

expenses, such as books, fees, and equipment; and (2) to pay for credentialing 

5 
 

 

	 

	 

	 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part I Mathematica Policy Research 

and licensing fees. CAAs cannot be used to fund supportive services, such as 

food, clothing, child care, or transportation. DOL and DoD encouraged 

One-Stop Career Centers and military bases to leverage other resources for 

supportive and other employment-related services. 

5.	 CAAs Have a Maximum Value of $6,000 over Two Years. At the start of 

the demonstration, the initial maximum amount of the CAA was $3,000 for 

one year, beginning from the date that a participant entered an approved 

education or training program. The CAA could then be renewed for a second 

year for an additional $3,000. The actual value of a CAA is determined by the 

specific employment/training plan. In December 2008, DOL and DoD 

revised this policy to allow participants in five states to exhaust the full $6,000 

allotment at any time during the two-year period or by the end of the grant 

period in June 2010, whichever was first. 

6.	 CAA-Funded Training and Education Programs Should Lead to 

Degrees or Credentials. The education and training provided through a 

CAA must result in a postsecondary degree or industry-recognized portable 

credential in a high-demand field within two years. 

7.	 Military Spouses Should Manage Their Accounts. Within the limitations 

set by the preceding principles, CAA recipients should make their own 

decisions, with limited staff involvement, about how they use their accounts. 

By self-managing their accounts, military spouses have flexibility to determine 

personal career goals and identify employment and training opportunities that 

support their individual preferences. This differs from the service delivery 

model for individual training accounts (ITAs), the predominant method OneStop Career Centers use to fund eligible customers’ education and training. 

Before receiving an ITA, customers participate in a sequence of WIA services, 

starting with core services, such as self-serve job information and workshops 

on resume writing, and then intensive services, such as comprehensive 

assessments and individual counseling. They then receive staff counseling to 

select ITA-supported training programs. 

3. A Common Workflow Guided Opening and Managing CAAs 

To implement the seven guiding principles of CAAs, sites used a common set of steps 

to open and manage accounts (Figure I.1). The first four—hold orientation sessions, assess 

for military eligibility, identify education needs, and complete CAA approval process— 

comprise opening an account. The remaining steps—perform ongoing followup, renew 

account, and complete education—occur throughout the period of account management. 

B. Overview of the Evaluation 

The purpose of the evaluation is to determine the success of the demonstration in 

supporting education and training activities that can lead to portable careers for military 

spouses. 

6 
 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part I Mathematica Policy Research 

Figure I.1. MilSpouse Career Advancement Accounts Flow Diagram 

Orientation Sessions 

Introduce spouses to CAAs; explain eligibility 

requirements and expectations 

Assess for Military Eligibility 

Provide documentation to determine military eligibility 

Receive approved process form with military 

signatures 

Complete CAA Approval Process to Open 

Account 

Receive final approval for CAA from workforce partner 

Enroll in selected degree or certification program 

Begin attending program 

Ongoing Followup with CAA Staff 

Complete expected followup with CAA staff 

Provide requested documentation regarding program 

status 

Renew CAA 

When appropriate, complete steps to renew CAA for 

year 2 

Complete Education and Obtain Employment 

Complete certifications needed for selected career 

field 

Obtain employment in selected career field 

Identify Education Needs in 

Selected Career Field 

Identify career interest area 

Research programs offering a 

degree or certification in field 

Account Management Process 

by CAA Staff 

Approve CAA for spouses 

Establish payment system for 

education institutions 

Process invoices from education 

institutions 

Review spouses’ standing at 

education institutions 

Process invoices for additional 

courses/semester 

Renew accounts for second year 

Review spouses’ standing at 

education institutions 

Close account when spouse leaves 

program or completes program 

7 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part I Mathematica Policy Research 

1. Research Questions and Evaluation Overview 

Four research questions guide the overall study: 

1.	 To what extent are sites implementing the MilSpouse CAA Demonstration 

according to the seven principles guiding military spouse CAAs, and what 

successes and challenges are sites experiencing? 

2.	 What are the characteristics of military spouses participating in the 

demonstration? How are participants using their accounts? 

3.	 What are the education- and employment-related outcomes of CAA 

participants? What proportion of participants is enrolling in education and 

training programs, completing the programs, obtaining credentials, and finding 

employment related to their credentials? 

4.	 What factors are associated with participants’ successful outcomes? How 

does participation affect their satisfaction with their spouse’s military career? 

How are the sites and participants working to overcome any barriers to 

successful participation? 

The evaluation team is addressing these questions through both an implementation 

study and a quantitative study. Using qualitative information gathered about how the 

demonstration is providing services and developing strategies to overcome challenges to 

implementation, the implementation study begins to address these questions. The 

quantitative study, which will occur during the first half of 2009, will provide further 

information using data collected about: (1) individuals, including demographic 

characteristics; (2) shorter-term outcomes, such as program completion; and (3) to the 

extent allowed by the data, longer-term outcomes, such as attainment of employment. A 

final report of this study, which will be submitted to DOL in spring 2009, will present the 

findings from this quantitative analysis, as well as a summary of implementation lessons. 

2. Implementation Study Methods 

The implementation study was guided by 10 topics that MPR identified through (1) a 

review of DOL and DoD implementation guidance to states and sites, and (2) an analysis of 

early implementation issues collected during initial technical assistance and monitoring calls 

among DOL, DoD, and the participating states. The 10 topics looked broadly at 

implementation of CAAs across demonstration states and at the associated challenges: 

1.	 Grantee Context 

2.	 Grant Design and Implementation 

3.	 Collaboration and Partnerships 

4.	 Staff Structure and Time Allocation 

8 
 

 

	 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part I Mathematica Policy Research 

5. Recruitment and Eligibility 

6. Experiences with Education and Training Programs, and Supportive Services 

7. Account Management Processes 

8. Characteristics and Motivation of Participating/Non-participating Spouses 

9. Data Management 

10.	 Accomplishments, Lessons Learned, and Challenges with Operating Military 

Spouse CAAs 

Data collection for the implementation study consisted of in-depth site visits conducted 

in each of the eight demonstration states between May and August 2008 (Table I.1). MPR 

and/or Coffey Consulting staff conducted each visit. In three states—California, Florida, 

and Washington—the implementation study team conducted two visits to ensure that 

information about implementation at each of the lead military bases and their partnering 

One-Stop Career Center was collected. All visits occurred six to eight months after the start 

of the demonstration, but implementation study team members found sites at different 

points in their program implementation, and none of the sites had CAAs ready to be 

renewed for a second year. 

During each visit, implementation study team members attempted to conduct a 

common set of data collection activities to ensure that they developed a consistent and 

thorough understanding of each site. Interview respondents included demonstration staff 

from entities of the workforce system, which generally included the state labor or workforce 

department, the participating WIB, and the local One-Stop Career Center, and from centers 

of the military base, which generally included the education and family support centers.4 

When possible, implementation study team members observed military spouses’ interactions 

with demonstration staff. For example, they observed base briefings when service members 

learned about the accounts that were available to their spouses, orientation sessions when 

military spouses learned about the requirements, and one-on-one meetings when military 

spouses began the process of opening an account. Finally, team members conducted group 

discussions with participants who had opened a CAA. They also attempted to hold group 

discussions with military spouses who expressed interest in opening an account but did not 

do so. However, since site staff had difficulty recruiting spouses who did not have an 

ongoing relationship with them through the provision of a CAA, only three sites successfully 

convened these groups. 

4 Throughout this report, the term “workforce partner” refers to the entities of the workforce system 

involved in the demonstration and the term “military partner” refers to the entities of the military base involved 

in the demonstration. 

9 
 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part I Mathematica Policy Research 

During the analysis phase, the implementation study team looked across the data 

sources to pursue three main goals: (1) complete a detailed description of demonstration 

implementation in each site; (2) conduct a cross-site analysis to identify themes and patterns 

in implementation across the states and sites; and (3) identify sites’ implementation 

strategies, as well as their creative solutions to challenges, that other sites might find helpful 

as they provide CAAs to military spouses. Analysis occurred primarily at the site level by 

comparing and contrasting implementation at the 11 sites. 

C. Roadmap to Report 

The rest of this report focuses on how sites implemented the MilSpouse CAA 

Demonstration. Chapter II discusses demonstration partnerships between military and 

workforce entities and partners’ collaborations with educational institutions. Chapter III 

describes early implementation of the demonstration and how partners staffed the 

demonstration to carry out their implementation responsibilities. Chapter IV turns to how 

sites introduced the education and training opportunity to military spouses through broad 

marketing efforts and orientation sessions. Chapter V focuses on the CAA account process, 

including how sites opened and managed CAAs. Chapter VI describes participants’ 

experiences with the CAA process and the demonstration as a whole, including their 

perspective on how the demonstration benefited them and their families. Chapter VII 

summarizes the lessons learned through the study. 

10 

 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part I Mathematica Policy Research 

CHAPTER II 

FORMATION OF PARTNERSHIPS
 

AND COLLABORATIONS 

Strong partnerships between the local Workforce Investment Boards (WIBs) and OneStop Career Centers on the workforce side and education centers and/or family 

support centers from the participating military bases were key to successfully launching 

the joint-agency demonstration envisioned by DOL and DoD. DOL and DoD had 

expected workforce and military partners to work together to conduct outreach, screen for 

eligibility, and provide guidance on selecting career fields and education opportunities. 

Another relationship important to successful implementation and mentioned by partners in 

most sites was collaborations with educational institutions. These collaborations were 

developed to make CAA participants aware of the widest range of schools that could 

potentially meet their needs, and facilitate their enrollment using CAA funds. 

This chapter explores these two key relationships in greater detail. Section A focuses on 

the formation of partnerships between the military and workforce partners, including predemonstration relationships between partners; common features that were identified in sites 

with positive partnerships; and common challenges to maintaining the partnerships. Section 

B discusses collaborations between partners and educational institutions, including resulting 

benefits to CAA participants as well as drawbacks to collaboration. 

A. Partnership Formation and Challenges 

Building partnerships between military and workforce entities was a cornerstone of this 

demonstration from both a design and an operational perspective. At the federal level, DOL 

and DoD partnered to design and carry out the demonstration. At the local level, DOL and 

DoD emphasized military and workforce partnerships to capitalize on the specific skills, 

knowledge, concrete systems, and perspectives that each partner brought to the initiative, 

gained through their experience providing education and workforce services. While some of 

their areas of expertise overlap, each partner offered a range of relevant, and sometimes 

unique, experience and skills (Table II.1). 

11 
 

 

 

 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part I Mathematica Policy Research 

Key Findings on Partnerships and Collaborations 

•	 To carry out the demonstration as envisioned by DOL and DoD, most sites successfully formed 

partnerships between state and local workforce entities and One-Stop Career Centers on the workforce 

side, and education centers and/or family support centers from the participating military bases. 

•	 Partners generally had experience working together prior to the demonstration through jointly operated 

DOL-DoD programs, DOL grants or state-funded efforts to provide workforce services to military 

families, or other programs. The current demonstration built upon these experiences. 

•	 Strong partnerships appear to rely on open communication, dedicated leadership, and clearly defined 

roles and responsibilities among partners. 

•	 Although defining a collaborative process and establishing a communication strategy were common 

challenges, most sites were able to overcome them. Inter-agency tensions and inconsistent views of the 

partnership prevailed at sites that were not able to do so. 

•	 Partners’ collaborations with educational institutions offered benefits to CAA participants, such as 

readily accessible information about the schools and their programs and easy access to school staff. 

Given the mission and role of the two types of military centers involved in the 

demonstration, the military partner was expected to draw on its experience providing 

education and career/employment services, working with the military spouse population, 

and collaborating with education institutions. Each military center, though, had slightly 

different expertise. As their name implies, education centers offered experience providing 

customers, primarily military personnel, with a range of education-related services, including 

skills assessments, education counseling on institutions and training programs, and assistance 

with designing courses of study. Education centers also offered established relationships 

with local schools, both on base and off base. Family support centers were expected to 

bring their experience providing career and employment-related services, such as skills and 

career assessments, information about available employment opportunities, job search 

services, and employment-readiness counseling. Family support centers, which viewed their 

target population as military families, had a history of regularly providing these services not 

only to military personnel, but also to military spouses. They also had a history of providing 

services at a broader level, offering ombudsman support and coordination to help link 

families with their commands, workshops and support groups, and other similar services.5 

5 A military ombudsman, also known as a family liaison or key volunteer, is a critical communication link 

between the commanding officer and family members. The ombudsman can offer information and referrals to 

help family members gain access to the assistance and services they need. 

12 
 

 

	 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part I Mathematica Policy Research 

Table II.1. Experience and Skills of Demonstration Partners 

Military: Workforce: 

Military: Family One-Stop 

Education Support Career 

Experience and Skills Center Center Center 

Serving military spouses X X 

Providing education or career counseling X X X 

Administering skills assessments X X X 

Offering job search assistance X X 

Existing relationships with education X X 

institutions 

Providing payments to education institutions X 

for training accounts 

Source:	 Analysis of site visit interview information and other written documents provided by the 

11 sites. 

The entities from the workforce partner, particularly the participating One-Stop Career 

Centers, were expected to bring forth their experience operating employment and training 

programs, connecting with local employers to help customers obtain jobs, and administering 

training funds. In particular, the workforce partner had experience operating individual 

training accounts (ITAs), which, like CAAs, allow customers to choose and purchase 

education or training services. Through this experience, the workforce system had an 

existing infrastructure to make payments to institutions on behalf of customers for education 

and training. In addition, the workforce partner and its entities typically provided a range of 

services, such as career guidance, skill and career assessments, job search assistance, training 

and education, and supportive service referrals. A final aspect of the workforce partner that 

benefited the demonstration was its linkages with local schools and training providers. At 

the state level, the state workforce entity was expected to bring its experience overseeing the 

range of employment and training programs offered at the local level. 

This section will describe four key findings related to partnership formation: (1) military 

and workforce partners generally had experience working together before the demonstration; 

(2) strong partnerships demonstrated open communication, leadership, and defined roles; (3) 

defining collaboration and communication processes were common challenges, although 

most sites were able to overcome them; and (4) sites with less stable partnerships exhibited 

inter-agency tensions and inconsistent views of the partnership. 

1. Partners Generally Had Experience Working Together Prior to the 

Demonstration 

In nearly all sites, staff reported pre-demonstration relationships between workforce and 

military partners. Past relationships were forged through implementing previous DoD-DOL 

joint programs or operating programs that serve the members of their partner agency 

13 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part I Mathematica Policy Research 

(although the latter category was limited to workforce partners offering services specifically 

to military families). Interview respondents in three sites noted that past partnerships—in 

which military and workforce entities had worked together—had helped to build their 

current demonstration partnerships. Examples of programs that benefited from past 

relationships include: 

•	 Transition Assistance Program is a partnership between DoD, DOL, and 

Veterans Affairs to meet the needs of separating service members and their 

families when transitioning to civilian life. The program offers job search 

assistance and related services. Military staff are responsible for pre-separation 

counseling, including a review of transition services, benefits, and resources, 

while the workforce staff offer employment workshops and introduce One-Stop 

Career Center services. 

•	 Disabled Veterans’ Outreach Program (DVOP) is a DOL program in which 

One-Stop Career Center staff provide outreach assistance to veterans with 

disabilities and provide services to meet their training and employment needs. 

In some locations, a DVOP representative from the One-Stop Career Center is 

stationed on a military base. 

•	 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) is the process DoD uses to 

reorganize its installation infrastructure to more efficiently and effectively 

support its forces, increase operational readiness, and facilitate new ways of 

doing business. Through workforce and military partnerships, affected 

personnel were linked to the full range of One-Stop Career Center resources for 

career, training, and job assistance. In Maine, BRAC led to a more developed 

military/workforce partnership through opening on base a mini One-Stop 

Career Center called the BRAC Transition Center, to serve the transitioning 

base population. 

Previous Military/Workforce Partnerships 

•	 Transition Assistance Program 

•	 Disabled Veterans’ Outreach Program 

•	 Base Realignment and Closure initiatives 

•	 DOL grants to provide workforce 

services to military members 

•	 State-funded efforts to provide 

workforce services to military members 

•	 Military members sitting on Workforce 

Investment Boards (WIBs) 

Three sites also participated in earlier 

DOL grants targeting military members or 

spouses. In North Carolina, the workforce 

partner operated a three-year DOL 

Transition Services Project grant to assist 

military spouses with accessing education 

and training. In Colorado, the workforce 

partner operated a DOL National 

Emergency Grant targeting displaced 

military spouses. In California, the 

workforce partner operated a DOL Career 

Advancement Center grant to assist 

military members and their families. 

14 
 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part I Mathematica Policy Research 

The two participating One-Stop Career Centers in Florida had ongoing experience with 

a state-funded effort to link military spouses to workforce services. They employed Military 

Spouse Employment Advocates—funded by state general revenue dollars—who were 

stationed at local military bases to provide employment-related services to military spouses. 

Ongoing partnerships also existed as a result of involving military representatives on 

local WIBs. This type of partnership was reported in both Colorado and Fort Walton 

Beach, Florida. 

Other less common examples of previous partnerships were DOL Rapid Response 

grants to assist civilians laid off by military bases, DOL Fast Track programs to provide 

service priority to veterans seeking WIA services, and jointly conducted job fairs. 

2. Strong Partnerships Demonstrated Open Communication, Leadership, and 

Defined Roles 

In 8 of the 11 demonstration sites, interview respondents consistently reported that the 

partnership between the military and workforce entities was positive. While interview 

respondents commented on different aspects of the partnerships’ strengths, three core 

features emerged. Sites demonstrating positive partnerships had (1) partners who were open 

to discussing problems and able to resolve them effectively, (2) strong and supportive 

leadership, and (3) clearly defined roles and responsibilities. Of the eight sites, three 

exhibited all three of these key features and thus appeared to have particularly strong 

partnerships. In the other sites, some weaknesses were reported in at least one of these 

three areas. 

Openness to Discussing Problems and the Ability to Resolve Them Effectively. 

In nearly every one of the eight sites with a reportedly positive partnership, military and 

workforce partners agreed that they are willing to discuss issues or problems that arise and 

negotiate solutions without getting stymied by potential differences of opinion. For 

example, interview respondents in Jacksonville, Florida, and Tacoma, Washington, described 

how partners have resolved problems in paperwork flow (that is, the hand-off of paperwork 

from the military to the workforce partner) by asking for partners’ input on how the process 

should change and jointly agreeing upon solutions. In Oceanside, California, interview 

respondents emphasized that partners achieve consensus on how to resolve problems even 

when conflicting goals or perspectives exist, which is evidence of the partners’ commitment 

to working through issues. 

Out-stationing of One-Stop Career Center staff on the military bases seemed to 

facilitate this process, but it was not necessarily a pre-condition for effective problem-solving 

in every site. As part of the demonstration, DOL and DoD strongly encouraged at least 

part-time out-stationing of One-Stop Career Center staff, especially in the early stages of 

implementation, and this occurred in six of the sites. Partners in those sites, particularly in 

the four where staff were out-stationed on a full-time basis, found that this set-up made it 

easier to resolve problems, because they could deal with issues as they arose instead of 

having to arrange meetings. There also seemed to be benefits in out-stationing when it came 

15 
 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part I Mathematica Policy Research 

to helping partners understand each other’s work processes and perspectives, thus leading to 

more reported openness and cooperation in problem solving. 

However, it was not always necessary for staff to be out-stationed on base for partners 

to be successful. In Bremerton, Washington, which (because of the location of the base and 

concerns about parking availability) decided not to out-station staff, partners made effective 

use of the time they were all together, such as during CAA participant orientation sessions, 

to discuss problems and find solutions. For example, during one such occasion, the 

workforce partner expressed concern about the availability of funding for CAA applicants, 

leading the workforce and military partners to devote that time to deciding how they would 

handle the issue. 

Strong and Supportive Leadership. There is evidence of the value of having site 

leaders who take charge of the demonstration and make their support of it known. Interview 

respondents from the three sites with reportedly strong partnerships indicated that a key 

feature of their success was strong and supportive leadership emanating from different and 

sometimes multiple sources. These leaders took on different roles—key among them taking 

charge of the demonstration from an operational perspective. In two sites, one individual 

emerged as the leader. In one case, for example, the leader was the key administrator from 

the One-Stop Career Center who was very hands-on in the demonstration and was lauded 

for helping define the demonstration initially and for facilitating decision-making as it moved 

forward. In another site, a lead partner (rather than a lead individual) emerged. In this case, 

military and workforce partners reported that the WIB had taken the lead in guiding the 

work of all partners. Administrators from the WIB reported that they believed the success 

or failure of the demonstration ultimately fell on them, and as a result they actively ensured 

that all partners understood and carried out the demonstration appropriately. 

Interview respondents in the sites described above also indicated that they had the 

support and leadership of the lead bases’ commanding officers. By actively helping to 

promote the demonstration, the commanding officers in these sites seemed to send the 

message to demonstration staff on the military side that this initiative was important and 

valued. This appeared to add legitimacy to the effort from the staff perspective. While the 

enthusiasm among staff for this demonstration was evident in most sites, it seemed 

particularly evident where commanding officers took on this role. 

Clearly Defined Roles and Responsibilities. In at least four sites with positive 

partnerships, staff reported the importance of clearly defined roles and responsibilities, 

especially early on. Confusion over partner roles can lead to unintended duplication of 

effort or to activities not being carried out at all. Clarifying roles, particularly those designed 

to be the sole responsibility of one partner, is key to avoiding the tensions and frustrations 

that can occur, according to interview responses. Since partners in all 11 sites reported that 

they did not have formal partner agreements (such as Memoranda of Understanding), it was 

even more important that roles were clear. In Tacoma, Washington, interview respondents 

noted that the military partners knew and respected the fact that approving fields of study is 

the responsibility of the One-Stop Career Center staff. Although staff from partners did not 

state directly why this was important, the implications are clear: if both workforce and 

military staff were assuming the responsibility of approving fields of study, there could be 

16 
MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part I Mathematica Policy Research 

instances in which—despite following the demonstration rules—partners might come to 

different conclusions, thus causing confusion from an operational perspective, sending 

mixed messages to potential participants, and causing tension between partners. 

3. Defining a Collaboration Process and Establishing a Communication Strategy 

Were Common Challenges 

Nearly all sites experienced challenges forming and sustaining partnerships. Common 

challenges across the sites related to (1) defining a collaborative process, and (2) establishing 

a communication strategy. In most sites, partners were able to work through these 

challenges and ultimately establish positive, or at least stable, partnerships. However, three 

sites were unable to establish solid relationships among the partners. 

Defining a Collaborative Process. The overlapping skills and background of 

partners, described earlier, contributed to some disagreements about how the partners would 

share demonstration tasks. Specifically, partners described difficulties in determining which 

partner would complete specific tasks and how tasks would be accomplished. These issues 

sometimes materialized during the planning process when partners disagreed on priorities. 

For example, interview respondents at one site described how the military partner wanted to 

focus on process and workflow in planning, while the workforce partner was focused on 

data outcomes. 

In other cases, partners approached their roles from different perspectives. For 

example, in one site the military partner viewed the workforce partner as overly concerned 

about completing paperwork and following processes and believed this slowed down the 

enrollment process. The workforce partner attributed the length of time needed to complete 

CAA processing to a backlog in applications. After voicing concerns, the workforce partner 

made changes to the processes, but not to the satisfaction of the military partner. 

While staff at sites commonly mentioned challenges in defining a collaborative process, 

sites with reportedly positive partnerships were often able to overcome these issues. For 

example, in the first site described, the workforce partners tried to describe clearly how their 

existing systems and processes could be used to operate the demonstration efficiently, which 

seemingly reassured the military partners that they did not have to focus so much on process 

and workflow. 

Establishing a Communication Strategy. Effective communication was a common 

challenge expressed across sites. In particular, when policy changes occurred early in the 

demonstration, partners sometimes learned about changes at different times. This raised the 

question of how and when partners would share information with each other. Some 

partners occasionally expressed discomfort with information sharing. 

Communication issues were particularly salient in two sites. In one site, the state 

workforce partner was hesitant to share DOL-provided information about policy and 

procedural changes directly with the military for fear of overstepping organizational 

boundaries. As a result, the military staff became frustrated that information reached them 

17 
MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part I Mathematica Policy Research 

haphazardly, often through informal communication with out-stationed workforce staff. 

Another site described concern over a lack of consistency in guidance from one partner to 

the next. For example, front-line staff would hear from the military partner that a CAA 

could be issued for a particular field, program, or school, but the workforce partner would 

later disagree. This naturally caused confusion. In these two sites, the communication issues 

were not resolved to the satisfaction of all partners at the time of the implementation study 

site visits. 

In contrast, partners in sites that reported positive partnerships typically developed 

strategies for addressing communication concerns. For example, in one site, military and 

workforce front-line staff attended monthly meetings, along with the state demonstration 

leads, to discuss the demonstration. This provided a structured forum to share changes, 

discuss concerns, and resolve unclear messages. Sites also learned over time to work 

through their communication issues. In at least two sites, partners reported that to resolve 

early communication lapses, they made an explicit rule to share new information immediately 

with other partners. 

4. Sites with Less Stable Partnerships Exhibited Tension and Inconsistent Views 

About Partnership Strength 

Partnerships in three sites appeared particularly strained, and the partners reportedly did 

not develop mutually beneficial ways to resolve issues as they emerged. Two common 

features of these partnerships became evident: (1) ambiguity about which partner should be 

leading the demonstration, and (2) inconsistent views of the partnership and its strength. 

Each of the three exhibited evidence of tension between partners. The reported tension 

emerged in the absence of a clear site leader for the demonstration. For example, in one site, 

high-level military administrators sought clarification on who had leadership authority 

between workforce and military and within the military between the education center and the 

family support center. Further, the military partner questioned whether the workforce 

partner should be involved in the demonstration at all. This was in sharp contrast to other 

sites, such as one in which the partners indicated that the demonstration would not have 

been nearly as successful if it had been handled by a single entity. 

Also, interview respondents in these three sites (unlike respondents in the other eight 

sites) did not describe their partnerships or their strengths consistently. In these three sites, 

some partners described the partnership as strong, while others questioned whether the 

challenges outweighed the benefits. While sometimes it was partners who expressed 

different views, at other times the inconsistency was between levels of staff. For example, in 

one site, the partners’ administrators described the partnership as adequate, but line staff 

described it as poor. Administrators described differences in how partners approached their 

work but reported that the issue was manageable. The military and workforce staff 

highlighted communication concerns as contributing to the weakness of the partnership. 

18 
 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part I Mathematica Policy Research 

B. Partners’ Collaborations with Education Institutions 

In all sites, the demonstration benefited from the long-standing pre-existing 

relationships that partners had with local schools. Schools often had on-base representatives 

at the education centers, on a full-time or weekly basis, to provide educational assistance to 

military members and their families. Some schools even offered classes on base. The 

workforce partner also had pre-existing relationships with schools, primarily through the 

experience of the WIB and the One-Stop Career Centers in funding WIA customers’ 

training opportunities through ITAs. 

Two benefits of these pre-existing relationships were (1) partners’ in-depth knowledge 

about local educational programs, and (2) existing staffing and support that could be used to 

help CAA participants. When pre-existing relationships with schools were in place, partners 

understood the schools’ program offerings, entrance requirements, enrollment steps, key 

contacts, and processes (such as paperwork and payment processes). For example, one or 

more partners were likely to have information about which schools offered programs in 

certain fields, and could provide comparisons in terms of cost, waiting lists, and other 

pertinent information. If waiting lists, location of schools, or other issues were of concern 

to a potential CAA participant, partners could provide information about similar alternative 

programs that might meet their needs (for example, a radiology program with no waiting list 

instead of a nursing program with a waiting list). In addition, in at least one site, as 

illustrated in Box II.1, a strong pre-existing relationship between a local school and the OneStop Career Center helped CAA participants receive intensive followup—assistance with 

enrollment problems, issues with participants’ performance in their courses, and so on— 

which they would likely not have received with demonstration staff alone. 

Box II.1. Jacksonville, Florida: Strong Collaborations with Local 

Schools Appear to Benefit Participants 

In Jacksonville, Florida, the local workforce system had a long-established relationship with a local 

community college. WIA customers frequently elected to attend programs on one of this college’s several 

campuses. Prior to the CAA demonstration, the One-Stop Career Center out-stationed staff at the college 

to provide on-site assistance to WIA customers and to help graduates with job placement. These on-site 

staff provided similar services to CAA participants who attended the school, completing monthly followup 

from enrollment through job placement and beyond. 

Another benefit was the connections that partners’ staff could make between potential 

CAA participants and school staff. For example, in two sites—Fort Walton Beach, Florida, 

and Georgia—representatives from some local schools were available at the CAA 

orientation/briefing. This was helpful because, after learning about the CAA demonstration, 

applicants could inquire immediately about the programs of one or more schools and, if 

appropriate, begin discussing an education plan. This added a degree of seamlessness to the 

process in that applicants did not have to wait to make an appointment with school staff but 

could instead have many of their questions answered right away. Partners in another two 

sites also used their connections with schools to provide detailed information to potential 

CAA participants or to create linkages between participants and schools. In Maine, for 

19 
MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part I Mathematica Policy Research 

example, school staff noted that sometimes workforce staff, in the process of working one 

on one with a CAA customer, would contact them to ask specific questions about a program 

of interest or to arrange for the customer to meet with them. Interview respondents thought 

the link to school staff was helpful because, rather than merely being sent to the school, a 

potential CAA participant was given a point of contact. 

While school involvement has benefits, it can also have drawbacks. For example, while 

a military partner at one site indicated that it would be useful to have schools attend 

orientations and briefings, this was not done, because a military administrator was concerned 

about the implications of inviting some schools but not others. In addition, some schools 

took the initiative to specifically market the CAA demonstration on their own, which, 

because of concerns over the accuracy of the information that schools provided, was not 

always welcomed by the military and workforce partners (see Chapter IV for further 

discussion about outreach). 

20 
 

 

 


 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part I Mathematica Policy Research 

CHAPTER III 

START-UP AND STAFFING
 

DOL and DoD expected the CAA demonstration to begin soon after sites were 

notified that they would be participating. An analysis of the start-up phase, which 

included developing a staffing structure and quickly putting implementation plans 

into action, provides important information about the successes and challenges sites faced 

during this time. Section A of this chapter provides information about demonstration startup, including a comparison of the speed of start-up in different sites, common and sitespecific challenges faced during start-up, and how early start-up pace related to later 

implementation progress. Section B describes demonstration staffing, including a brief 

description of demonstration staff, the allocation of partner staffs’ time, and challenges in 

staffing related to resources. 

A. Demonstration Start-Up 

DOL and DoD conducted on-site training in October 2007 to clarify demonstration 

details and encouraged sites to begin implementation soon after. The goal was for sites to 

commence awarding CAAs quickly so participants could begin attending their education and 

training programs for the semester starting in January 2008. While some sites met this 

expectation, others required more time to become fully operational. 

To assess start-up pace, the implementation study team categorized states as quick, 

moderate, and slow starters based on the percentage of their total state grant obligated as of 

February 4 and March 17.6

 States with a high percentage of funds obligated at each point 

6 Demonstration states began reporting their grant obligations to DOL and DoD in February 2008 

through the MilSpouse CAA Demonstration weekly report. When initiating this report, DOL and DoD asked 

states to provide data on all CAAs awarded since the demonstration’s inception. Initially, data on CAA awards 

were available only by state. DOL and DoD asked states to report the cumulative dollar amount for all 

accounts obligated by the reporting week. Obligations reflect funds spent and anticipated for all accounts. 

States varied in their definition of when an account was reported obligated. Figures on actual spending were 

not available. 

21 
	 

	 

	 

	 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part I Mathematica Policy Research 

(relative to other states) were classified as quick, while states with a low percentage obligated 

at each point were classified as slow. All others were classified as moderate. 

States varied in their start-up pace. Two states had a quick start-up phase, obligating 

nearly 6 percent of their total grant award as of February 4, 2008, the first date for which 

data on CAA awards were available (Table III.1). They continued at this rapid pace, with 

nearly 20 percent of funds obligated only one month later. On the other hand, two states 

had a slow start-up phase, obligating 1 percent of their total grant award by February 4, and 

they did not gain momentum over the following month. The third group of four states 

implemented the demonstration at a moderate pace. These sites had awarded a relatively 

modest number of accounts by early February, but all gained momentum by the next month. 

This section describes the experiences of the quick-starter sites and then discusses the 

common start-up challenges faced by most sites, as well as certain site-specific challenges. 

Key Findings on Start-Up and Staffing 

•	 Two states experienced a quick start-up, four followed a moderate pace, and two were initiated at a 

slow pace. Sites with quick start-ups benefited from early planning. 

•	 Both military and workforce demonstration staff often had a military connection—usually as a 

military spouse—which was reportedly useful in bridging the military and workforce cultures. 

•	 Workforce and military partners devoted significant staff time to the demonstration, though there 

were site-by-site differences depending on site needs, contextual factors such as the size of the grant 

or the number of participating bases, and the amount of time staff had available. Military partners 

typically identified existing staff who could take on demonstration responsibilities in addition to their 

existing workload. Workforce partners typically identified existing staff or hired new staff who could 

focus mostly, if not entirely, on the demonstration. 

•	 Workforce partner staff generally spent more time on the demonstration than military partners as a 

result of their access to grant funds for demonstration staffing, as well as the nature of their 

administrative responsibilities. 

1. Quick-Starter Sites Benefited from Early Planning 

Administrators from the two sites with quick start-ups attributed their pace to early 

planning facilitated by two key factors: (1) pre-existing relationships between military and 

workforce partners, as well as educational institutions; and (2) an early and active interest in 

the demonstration. As described in Chapter II, partners and collaborators at each site had 

different degrees of prior interaction with one another. Partners in these two quick-starter 

sites had a long and formal history of working together. They also exhibited an early interest 

in the demonstration, either by actively seeking out the demonstration grant or by displaying 

a pre-demonstration interest in specifically serving military spouses. Staff from these 

partners reported that these two factors made it easier to begin planning with each other, 

22 
 

 

	 

	 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part I Mathematica Policy Research 

and to make decisions about how the demonstration would operate, thus contributing to a 

quick start-up. 

Table III.1.	 Average Grant Obligations for States Exhibiting Quick, Moderate, and Slow 

Start-Up at Three Points in Time 

Category of 

States 

Number of 

States 

Average Percentage of Each State’s Total Grant 

Funding Obligated by: 

2/4/08 3/17/08 10/27/08 

Quick 2 6% 19% 66% 

Moderate 4 2 8 42 

Slow 2 1 1 19 

Total 8 3% 9% 42% 

Source:	 Calculations based on MilSpouse CAA Demonstration weekly report data submitted by 

states. 

Interview respondents at one of the two sites, Fort Walton Beach, Florida, said that 

prior partnerships between military and workforce entities, as well as with local educational 

institutions, were key to their quick start. Military and workforce partners had a close 

relationship prior to the demonstration, primarily as a result of a local effort that allowed 

One-Stop Career Center staff to be out-stationed on base to provide services to military 

spouses. The military bases reportedly had a very close relationship with a number of local 

schools owing to their full-time presence on base. With these established relationships in 

place, the site was able to convene planning workgroup meetings with all partners—military, 

workforce, and education—before the demonstration grant was officially awarded. During 

early planning efforts, partners agreed on how the demonstration would operate. According 

to site staff, involving all partners from the very beginning helped staff “hit the ground 

running” as soon as grant funds were awarded. Interview respondents at the workforce 

partner also indicated that start-up was made easier because of past planning for another 

DOL grant. Although this grant was not specifically targeted to military spouses, the 

partners had brainstormed about how they would serve military spouses as part of the grant 

and included this plan in their proposal. While this past grant did not come through, the 

planning and relationship building served them well during start-up. 

In the other site, Maine, strong pre-existing partnerships between the military and 

workforce entities were also evident. In anticipation of an impending BRAC, a mini OneStop Career Center had been set up on base in 2006 to help military families plan for the 

upcoming base closure. Because the center was already known as a trusted resource for 

military families, staff at this center took on the responsibilities associated with the 

demonstration. In addition, while other sites were selected by DoD and DOL to participate 

without an application process, one partner in this site actively sought inclusion in the 

demonstration. Knowing that BRAC would significantly affect the military spouses who 

would soon be transferred to other bases (one of which was already selected as a 

demonstration site and would be receiving many of these families), partners completed up23 
MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part I Mathematica Policy Research 

front planning to demonstrate why they needed the grant and how they would implement 

the project. As part of their planning, partners traveled to the military base where many of 

their families would be transferring to discuss how the two sites could work together to 

implement the demonstration. Once awarded the grant, this pre-planning proved beneficial. 

For example, partners had developed a relationship with a well-known school in the other 

site, which allowed participants to begin their training program via distance learning and then 

continue their education in classrooms once transferred. Finally, this site also had an added 

incentive to start up quickly. Because military families were due to transfer to other bases, 

partners tried to front-load their use of demonstration funding to give participants enough 

time to begin (and, ideally, complete) their selected programs before transfers occurred. 

2. Delays in Receiving Demonstration Guidelines and Lack of Staff Resources 

Were Common Start-Up Challenges 

All sites faced challenges, at least to some degree, in the start-up phase. One that 

reportedly affected most sites regardless of start-up speed was the delay in receiving final 

demonstration guidelines. Sites with moderate or slow start-up speeds also reportedly faced 

site-specific issues, such as the lack of staff resources. 

A key start-up challenge, whether or not it significantly delayed start-up in a given site, 

was that the demonstration began without final guidelines. Interview respondents from at 

least six sites noted that the start-up phase was difficult because clear demonstration rules 

had not yet been established, although DOL and DoD were responsive to issues or 

questions during weekly phone calls. The Desk Guide—which was meant to provide 

background information and implementation guidance for the demonstration—was still in 

draft form at the time of start-up and was not finalized until February 2008. Despite this 

situation, sites moved forward with implementation, some with great success. Staff from 

three sites, for example, reported initiating their publicity efforts before grant funds were 

officially available or holding orientations before final guidance was provided. Sites faced 

further challenges during early implementation when DOL and DoD made changes to the 

initial demonstration guidance to add to the list of acceptable fields/industries and expand 

military eligibility, which sometimes highlighted communication difficulties within sites. 

Site-specific challenges posed problems for at least four sites, two of which had a 

moderate start-up pace. In one of these moderate-paced sites, interview respondents 

reported that the military lacked sufficient resources and staff to work on the demonstration 

immediately; although workforce partners had access to some demonstration funds for 

staffing, military partners had to leverage existing resources. This in turn delayed the 

initiation of outreach and recruitment efforts. Interview respondents in this site also 

reported that more coordination time between partners was needed prior to start-up. In 

another moderate-paced site, the staffing structure appeared to delay start-up. The state 

workforce agency contracted with two One-Stop Career Centers to provide services to 

spouses at four participating bases, and the contract negotiations with one center took longer 

than anticipated. Although other workforce staff were able to provide services to some of 

that base’s customers in the interim, demonstration start-up could not fully begin until the 

contract was finalized. 

24 
 

 

 

	 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part I Mathematica Policy Research 

Circumstances at two sites resulted in particularly slow start-up periods. One site did 

not officially begin start-up until April 2008, awarding relatively few accounts up to that 

point. Each partner—military and workforce—suggested that the delay occurred because of 

issues with the other partner’s available resources or processes, which raised questions about 

the true reasons for delay. In the other site, which awarded only 21 accounts by the end of 

March 2008, each partner faced challenges acquiring staff for the needed level of time. 

Interview respondents also described limited initial interest among military spouses in the 

CAA, most likely due to a large number of deployments at the time of start-up, and this 

reportedly resulted in fewer spouses wanting to pursue the CAA at that time or remaining on 

base to hear about the demonstration. More intensive marketing was also reportedly needed 

to pick up the pace of awarding CAAs to spouses who remained on base. 

3. Early Start-Up Pace Was Associated with Later Implementation Progress 

The pace of start-up in states was generally consistent with later implementation 

progress. Table III.1 presents the average percentage of grant funding obligated by 

October 27, 2008. A comparison of the late-October data and early start-up data suggests 

that states with a quick start-up maintained that rapid pace at later stages of implementation, 

still continuing to obligate their funds relatively quickly. Three of the four states that started 

up at a moderate pace gained ground in the months after initial start-up, obligating more 

than two-fifths of their demonstration funds by October 2008. The fourth state in this 

group appeared to slow in their pace of obligating grant funding, but this may be related to 

their definition of when grant funding was obligated. Slow start-up sites continued to lag 

behind in their obligations. 

B.	 Staffing the Demonstration 

To get the demonstration operational as soon as possible, sites had to determine a 

staffing approach and get staff in place quickly. Decisions about how to select 

demonstration staff varied by site and by partner. Demonstration staff, though, tended to be 

experienced in their field and often had a direct connection to the military—usually as a 

military spouse. 

Staff from workforce and military partners each devoted time to the demonstration. 

However, during early implementation, the amount of time spent by partners depended at 

least in part on the needs of the site, contextual site factors (such as the size of the grant or 

the number of participating bases in a site), and the amount of time staff had available. The 

workforce staff tended to spend more time on the demonstration than military partners 

because of the nature of their demonstration responsibilities as well as their access to 

administrative funds that could be used for staffing purposes. 

1. Demonstration Staff Often Had a Military Connection That Was Reportedly 

Useful in Bridging the Military and Workforce Cultures 

One commonality in staff selection across sites was that in at least eight sites, one or 

more of the workforce partner staff were prior military members or current/former military 

spouses. This was the case mostly among front-line staff but also sometimes among 

25 
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part I Mathematica Policy Research 

administrators. A similar pattern emerged for many of the military demonstration staff. A 

common reason for this approach was that it was seen as a means to bridge the “cultural 

divide” between the military and workforce systems, and a way to offer military spouses the 

most appropriate service. Administrators or staff in five sites discussed the following 

benefits of using staff with a personal military connection: 

•	 Knowledge of how to navigate military culture 

•	 Personal understanding of military life for military spouses (especially if the staff 

were military spouses themselves) 

•	 Ability to connect personally with potential CAA participants 

•	 Sense of commitment to their demonstration work 

CAA participants interviewed during some discussion groups highlighted the work of 

certain demonstration staff—often current or former military spouses themselves. As 

illustrated in Box III.1, a key characteristic of staff is that they showed respect to the people 

they served. 

Box III.1. One CAA Participant’s Appreciation of Demonstration Staff 

“You know the thing about it . . . that will make or break a person [is] that initial contact. So you know 

when [One-Stop staff person who was also a military spouse] comes out, she’s like ‘It’s all going to be OK. 

Come here,’ . . . so when you come up to someone and they treat you so warmly and with so much respect 

and so much dignity, it makes a huge difference. Because I can tell you, there will be other people who are 

not as dedicated, who are not as strong as others, who would come up and be treated with some disdain, and 

that will ruin them. . . . It will ruin them. They’ll walk out and never look back.” (CAA Participant Group 

Discussion) 

In at least one site, this staffing strategy extended to other demonstration partners. In 

Georgia, where the chamber of commerce was a key partner, responsibility for marketing 

was assigned to a current military spouse on staff at the chamber, reportedly because she was 

knowledgeable about the appropriate avenues for marketing to the military. 

2. Military and Workforce Partners Had Different Staffing Approaches 

Military and workforce partners took different approaches to staff selection. From the 

military perspective, staffing the demonstration generally meant identifying existing staff 

who could perform demonstration duties in addition to their normal workload. From the 

workforce perspective, this typically entailed identifying or hiring staff that could devote 

significant time to the demonstration, often to the exclusion of any outside responsibilities 

(meaning they were assigned solely to the demonstration). This difference in approach was 

due primarily to the fact that workforce partners had access to demonstration funds for 

staffing purposes, while those funds were not available to military partners. 

26 
 

 

 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part I Mathematica Policy Research 

3. Partners’ Staffing Decisions Depended on Their Responsibilities, Available 

Resources, and Grant Size 

Military and workforce partners had to make decisions about how much time selected 

staff, particularly front-line staff who worked directly with CAA applicants and participants, 

would spend on the demonstration during early implementation. They typically based these 

decisions on a few key factors, including the range of assigned responsibilities for each staff, 

the amount of time staff could devote to the demonstration given other non-demonstration 

responsibilities, and the particular staffing needs of the site. The size of the grant awarded to 

a site was an important consideration in determining the extent of staffing need. Two sites 

using a large amount of total staff time represented some of the larger grants awarded. The 

number of bases covered by the grant was another key factor in determining the extent of 

staffing needed. One site using a large amount of total staff time covered four bases in their 

grant, each from a different military branch. Thus, greater staff participation was needed to 

cover all bases. 

The staffing patterns that sites established during early implementation, which are 

discussed here, will likely change over the life of the demonstration. As workforce staff 

continue to open accounts and manage the accounts that have already been opened, and the 

focus moves away from the early tasks of marketing and recruitment, it is anticipated that 

workforce staff will be allocating an even larger proportion of their time to the 

demonstration while the military staff will likely be devoting somewhat less. 

Overall, more than half the sites allotted a total of more than 2 full-time equivalents 

(FTE), when accounting for both military and workforce front-line staff’s total reported time 

spent on the demonstration.7

 The average combined FTE for the demonstration was 2.7, 

with sites ranging from about 1 FTE to more than 5 (Table III.2). 

While the total number of FTE is helpful in understanding the total front-line staffing 

levels—that is, workforce plus military—in each site, examining staffing of each partner 

separately provides additional information. Both workforce staff and military partner staff 

devoted time to the demonstration. However, the workforce partners typically devoted 

more, presumably because of their access to earmarked funding that could be used for 

staffing and because of the wider nature of their responsibilities. Workforce and military 

partners had shared responsibilities (such as verifying applicant eligibility and providing 

education and career services) as well as separate responsibilities. Military partners, for 

example, were generally responsible for taking the lead in conducting marketing and 

recruitment. Workforce partners were responsible for opening, administering, and managing 

accounts, which, as discussed further in Chapter V, was often a time-consuming task. 

7 FTE was calculated based on information reported by local staff and staff supervisors on the amount of 

time actually spent on the demonstration by each front-line staff person, defined as any staff regularly working 

directly with CAA applicants or participants or doing administrative data entry or other similar activities for the 

demonstration. As a result, a reported staffing level of 2 FTE does not mean that a total of 2 staff were 

assigned to the demonstration, but rather that the total staff time for the demonstration amounted to 2 FTE. 

27 
 

 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part I Mathematica Policy Research 

Table III.2. FTEs Allocated to the Demonstration, by Type of Partner 

Lowest Staff Highest Staff 

Allocation in Any Allocation in Any 

Average FTE Site Site 

Workforce and Military Partners Combined 2.7 1.0 5.5 

Workforce Partner Staff Only 1.6 0.7 3.8 

Military Partner Staff Only 1.1 0.3 2.1 

Education Center Partner Staff 0.7 0.0 1.8 

Family Support Center Partner Staff 0.5 0.0 1.5 

Source: Analysis of staffing information provided by the 11 sites. 

Note: N = 11 sites. 

On average, workforce partner front-line staff reported allocating about 0.50 of an FTE 

more to the demonstration than military partner staff. Workforce partner staff reported 

allocating an average of 1.6 FTE to the demonstration, while military partner front-line staff 

reported about 1.1 FTE (Table III.2). The FTE range varied for both workforce and military 

partner staff. Workforce partner front-line staffing ranged from 0.7 to 3.8 FTE. Military 

partner front-line staffing ranged from 0.3 to 2.1 FTE. 

Finally, staff from education centers and family support centers reported a similar 

average level of staffing, 0.7 and 0.5 FTE, respectively (Table III.2). However, across sites, 

staffing patterns at these centers indicated varying levels of time committed to the 

demonstration (not shown). Education center partners were reportedly staffed at a higher 

level than family support center staff in six sites, the reverse was true in four sites, and in one 

site there was no difference. Overall, there were four sites in which the difference in staffing 

levels between these two military offices was between 1 FTE and 2 FTEs. In two of these 

four sites, this reflects that both centers did not provide staff for the demonstration. In one 

of these sites, staff from the family support center provided no time, while in the other site, 

staff from the education center provided no time. 

Information collected through site visit interviews provided insight into how staffing 

decisions were working at an operational level. Sites sometimes learned during 

implementation that their planned staffing level was insufficient. This occurred in the site 

reporting total military and workforce staffing of less than 1 FTE. Here, military staff 

devoted limited time to the demonstration. However, the primary workforce staff person 

had to devote much more time to the demonstration than was originally agreed upon by the 

site’s workforce partner. In another site, where workforce staff were already contributing 

double the amount of time as their military partners, the workforce staff capacity was 

expanded even further when they hired two temporary full-time staff to assist with 

processing their backlog of CAA applications.8 

8 These new staff are not reflected in Table III.2, because they had not begun working with customers at 

the time of the site visit. 

28 
MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part I Mathematica Policy Research 

4. Military Partners Lacked Resources, as Did Some Workforce Partners 

Challenges existed in staffing, primarily as a result of resource issues—which affected 

mostly the military partners. In at least five sites, the military partners reported that the 

demonstration overburdened staff. Because military staff involved in the demonstration had 

to divide their time between their regular work and demonstration work, staff reported being 

overloaded and having to make accommodations, sometimes significant, in their workflow 

to complete CAA work. In one site, while the demonstration was reportedly valued and 

seen as important, it was also seen as directly taking staff time away from their main mission: 

serving military members. At least four other sites indicated that military staff were facing an 

increased workload, but they did not believe that this was directly taking services away from 

active duty members. 

It appeared that while staffing issues were of concern to military partners in general, 

there was a difference in perspective and impact across the participating military centers. 

This was seemingly due to variation in the perceived mission of the involved centers. Family 

support centers viewed their mission and goal as serving the military family as a whole 

(including members, spouses, children, and so on). Staff from education centers described 

their primary focus as serving military members, though not to the exclusion of military 

families. This difference likely explains, at least in part, why partners from the education 

centers were more likely to report workload conflicts related to serving military spouses as 

part of the demonstration. It is also possible that staffing decisions and perceived challenges 

in staffing from the education center and family support center perspective may have varied 

according to the branch of service involved, but not enough information is available to draw 

a conclusion. 

Another staffing challenge, in at least one state, was that the staff from military partner 

expressed resistance to taking on the demonstration work, primarily in the beginning stages, 

because the workforce partner received funds for staff and administrative work, but the 

military did not. Here, the workforce partner explored restructuring its own budget so some 

of their funds could cover tasks assigned to the military partner, thereby reducing any 

possible tensions between partners. 

Finally, workforce partners in at least four sites also described staffing challenges. Staff 

from the workforce partner in one site indicated that, from the beginning of the 

demonstration, they believed the resources available to them were not sufficient for the work 

they were being asked to do. Military partner staff in this site noted that, in response, the 

workforce partner initially pressured them to take on certain roles that they were not 

expecting and the military staff have been fulfilling those roles ever since. Interview 

respondents in at least three other sites reported hiring additional workforce staff during 

implementation because of the workload involved. 

29 

 

	 

	 

	 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part I Mathematica Policy Research 

CHAPTER IV 

INTRODUCING CAREER ADVANCEMENT 

ACCOUNTS TO POTENTIAL PARTICIPANTS 

The MilSpouse CAA Demonstration offered a new training opportunity to military 

spouses. Staff at the demonstration sites expressed excitement about this, but faced 

the challenge of building awareness and stimulating demand among eligible military 

spouses. Thus, publicizing the demonstration and educating spouses about the availability of 

brand-new training funding, eligibility requirements, and the enrollment process were critical 

early steps for each site. To introduce potential participants to the demonstration, sites 

conducted marketing efforts (Section A) and convened orientation sessions to share details 

with potential participants through group and individual sessions (Section B). 

Key Findings on Introducing Participants to CAAs 

•	 Introducing potential participants to the MilSpouse CAA Demonstration was a two-step process 

involving broad marketing efforts and formal, in-depth orientation sessions. 

•	 Military partners were consistent players in, and often led, publicity efforts to market the 

demonstration, though word of mouth emerged as a desired strategy. 

•	 Orientations occurred primarily on military bases and were held mostly in group settings. They 

provided potential participants an opportunity to learn about the eligibility requirements and 

enrollment process and, in seven sites, to begin or complete the enrollment process. 

A. Broadly Marketing the MilSpouse CAA Demonstration 

Staff at each of the demonstration sites faced the initial, and the ongoing, task of 

informing potential participants about this new opportunity for training funding. Military 

partners often led this effort through broad marketing to inform their military community 

about who was eligible, what training programs would be funded, and the timing of available 

funds. A variety of marketing efforts was used, including disseminating written materials on 

31 

 


 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part I Mathematica Policy Research 

bases and placing advertisements in base newspapers and on base television broadcasts. 

Military partners also began describing the demonstration during base briefings for new and 

existing families. With time, site staff viewed word of mouth as an increasingly helpful 

marketing approach. 

1. Marketing Efforts Involved Multiple Partners, but Were Often Led by the 

Military 

In all 11 sites, military partners participated in the sites’ publicity and marketing efforts, 

because of their knowledge of and access to the target population. Their level of 

involvement varied, however. In 7 of the 11 sites, the military partner was either the only or 

the primary partner involved in marketing efforts (Table IV.1). In these sites, if the 

workforce partner participated in publicity, it was typically in a passive, secondary role, such 

as posting pamphlets at the One-Stop Career Center. 

Table IV.1. Varied Role of Partners in Marketing Efforts 

Partners’ Role in Marketing Number of Sites 

Military Sole Responsibility 3 

Military Lead Role, Workforce Secondary 4 

Military and Workforce Share Lead 1 

Workforce Lead Role, Military Secondary 2 

Other Partner Lead, Workforce and Military Secondarya 1 

Source: Analysis of site visit interview information and other written documents provided by the 

11 sites 

Note: N = 11 sites.
 a

In one site, the other partner was the chamber of commerce.
 

If the military did not lead marketing, the responsibility was (1) shared by both the 

military and the workforce partner, (2) assumed by the workforce partner, or (3) assumed by 

another partner. The workforce partner in North Carolina led marketing by developing 

materials describing the demonstration, then shared the materials with their military partners, 

who distributed them on base and off. In Maine, the workforce partner was operating on 

base before the demonstration was introduced, and this pre-existing presence positioned 

them, with support from their military partners, to take an active role in building awareness 

for the demonstration. Georgia included a unique partner, the chamber of commerce, in its 

publicity efforts. The chamber’s strong community presence, on base and off, and its longstanding knowledge of community marketing allowed it to develop targeted strategies to 

spread the word. The base’s education center also participated in publicity efforts. 

32 
 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part I Mathematica Policy Research 

2. Education Institutions Sought a Role in Marketing, Which Not All Sites 

Welcomed 

As key demonstration collaborators in many sites, education institutions were 

positioned to participate in marketing through their ready access to potential participants 

already attending their institutions. In about two-thirds of the demonstration sites, 

education institutions advertised the availability of the CAAs to their student population. 

This was helpful, as staff at some sites initially viewed spouses already attending local 

education institutions as solid targets for early participation, and several employed strategies 

to reach this population. Their direct marketing strategies included advertisements in course 

catalogs and discussions during staff interactions with potentially eligible students. 

A challenge for the staff from workforce and military partners when education 

institutions marketed the demonstration was ensuring that the institutions provided current 

and accurate information about which spouses were eligible and what training programs 

were appropriate. Military and workforce partners had to remain in frequent communication 

with education institutions to ensure that the most accurate and up-to-date information was 

shared. Another means of dealing with this matter, though not used by all sites, was asking 

the education institutions to cease their independent publicity efforts. 

3. Varied Marketing Strategies Spread the Word About the Demonstration 

Demonstration sites engaged in a variety of marketing approaches to spread the word 

about the demonstration, including written and verbal efforts on base and in the surrounding 

communities. Over time, staff at sites developed a belief that word of mouth was 

productive, and possibly the most useful means of marketing to military spouses. However, 

the only evidence to support this assertion was anecdotes from interviews with respondents. 

One common marketing strategy was to 

develop materials for broad dissemination. 

Sites created brochures and flyers that were 

posted in common areas and distributed in 

offices frequented by spouses, such as the 

education center or family support center. 

Many of the military newspapers prepared 

stories, often quoting the staff of the 

demonstration partners. In addition, sites 

placed advertisements about the demonstration 

in the base newspapers. At least two bases 

attempted to build early awareness of the 

demonstration by holding large-scale kickoff 

events that informed spouses, as well as the 

broader community associated with the base, 

about this new opportunity exclusively for 

military spouses. These events were sponsored 

by the commanding officer or someone else in 

Marketing Strategies 

• Flyers and brochures 

• Newspaper advertisements 

• Newspaper articles 

• Advertisements in course catalogs 

• Emails to groups on base 

• Announcements during base briefings 

• Targeted demonstration kickoff events 

• TV advertisements 

• Word of mouth 

• Ombudsmen and spouse clubs 

33 
 	 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part I Mathematica Policy Research 

a leadership position, and occurred early in the demonstration period, typically in November 

2007. 

Information about the MilSpouse CAA Demonstration was also shared during the 

bases’ regular activities, especially when large gatherings were convened. Staff from the 

education centers and family support centers frequently conducted briefings to educate 

service members about available programs and opportunities, or to welcome new personnel 

to the base, and shared details of the CAA opportunity with service members as an indirect 

means of getting the information to their spouses. 

Staff in more than half the sites cited word of mouth as a critical way of stimulating 

demand for the demonstration. In at least two sites, staff reported conducting only limited 

ongoing marketing, as sufficient demand for the demonstration had been generated through 

their initial efforts and the ongoing word of mouth. Demonstration staff in Jacksonville, 

Florida, did not plan to embark on additional marketing efforts until they began seeing a 

decline in interest from potential participants, and Maine demonstration staff did not 

anticipate additional marketing efforts, as the level of demand was on par with the funding 

available for the demonstration. 

While word of mouth can be a fruitful means of reaching the target population, it is 

often necessary to devise ways to stimulate sharing through this means. Several sites 

networked with on-base groups that interacted with military spouses on a regular basis. For 

example, they reached out to bases’ ombudsmen programs and then used the ombudsmen to 

spread the word to spouses in the groups they represented, or they connected with military 

spouse clubs to share information. Using this sort of network allowed mention of the 

demonstration during one-on-one conversations, when people may be more receptive. 

B.	 Orienting Spouses to the Demonstration and Its Expectations 

After introducing spouses to the demonstration through marketing efforts, sites held 

formal, in-depth orientations where spouses could get answers to questions and, potentially, 

speak individually with military or workforce demonstration staff. Orientations were usually 

held at the military bases and involved staff from both the base and the One-Stop Career 

Center. In a small number of sites, representatives from education institutions also attended 

group orientations to serve as a resource for spouses. At some sites, orientations could also 

serve as the beginning step in getting a CAA approved, though it was unlikely that all the 

required steps could be completed to fully open an account. Formats included group and 

individual settings, and many sites offered group orientation on a set schedule along with 

opportunities for individual orientation to address scheduling needs for some participants. 

1. Orientations Introduced the Demonstration to Military Spouses and Often 

Began the Approval Process 

All sites used their orientation sessions to introduce potential participants to the 

demonstration (Table IV.2). This introduction typically consisted of a formal group 

presentation that focused on the demonstration’s guidelines by reviewing who could 

participate, what career fields and training programs were eligible, and how to progress 

34 
 

 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part I Mathematica Policy Research 

through the enrollment process. The workforce partner in one site also used the orientation 

to explain the emphasis on obtaining employment after receiving a degree or credential: 

Colorado’s orientation staff presented the demonstration as a “Jobs First” program where 

participants are expected to seek employment right after finishing the training program. 

While other sites may have mentioned employment, this site appeared to have a particularly 

strong emphasis on employment, beginning with the message they provided at orientation. 

Table IV.2. Format, Frequency, and Purpose of Orientation Sessions 

Orientation Sessions Number of Sites 

Purpose of Session 

Introduction Only 4 

Introduction and Begin CAA Approval Process 5 

Introduction and Complete CAA Approval Process 2 

Format of Sessions 

Group 10 

Individual 4 

Frequency of Sessions 

Weekly 7 

One to Two Times per Month 5 

Other 3 

Source: Analysis of site visit interview information and other written documents provided by the 

11 sites. 

Notes: N = 11 sites. Number of sites using a strategy may sum to more than 11, as 

demonstration sites may use more than one approach for conducting orientation 

sessions. 

A range of staff, including staff from the One-Stop Career, education center, and family 

support center, participated in these presentations, which were often guided by a set of slides 

that followed a template provided by DOL/DoD. In seven sites, staff from both the 

workforce and the military partners consistently attended orientations. Of the remaining 

four sites, three did not have consistent attendance at orientation by staff from both 

partners, but it did occur on occasion. The fourth site was the only one to not offer a group 

orientation format. In a small number of sites, partners invited representatives from local 

education institutions to attend orientation to serve as a resource for participants looking to 

learn about available programs. 

Some sites also viewed the orientation as a venue for either starting or completing the 

approval process to open a CAA. Five demonstration sites had potential participants begin 

the enrollment process, but enrollment required additional steps following orientation. In 

these sites, the orientation involved a formal presentation describing the demonstration, and 

included time for potential participants to be approved for the demonstration from the 

military’s perspective. This primarily involved checking the potential participant’s military 

ID and ensuring that the service member spouse of the potential participant had sufficient 

time remaining at that base. During these orientations, potential participants often had an 

35 
 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part I Mathematica Policy Research 

opportunity to speak one-on-one with workforce demonstration staff about specific 

questions relating to the demonstration or to clarify expectations and next steps in the 

enrollment process. Georgia implemented strategies during their orientation to streamline 

the initial steps for receiving account approval, such as simplifying the military’s review and 

inviting education institutions (see Box IV.1). 

Box IV.1. Georgia: Streamlining Enrollment Through the Orientation 

Partners in Georgia schedule weekly group orientation sessions on base at Fort Bragg. 

Representatives of all partners attend, including staff from the education center, the One-Stop Career 

Center, the local WIB, and several schools. Georgia implemented two strategies at orientation with the goal 

of streamlining the enrollment process for participants. 

First, as potential participants sign in for the orientation, a staff member from the education center 

reviews each individual’s military ID, their primary document to certify military eligibility. This staff person 

then completes the military sections of the process form, enters the date on the form, and provides the 

signed form to the potential participant who is ready to enroll. 

Second, the site invites representatives from local education institutions to attend orientation. The 

representatives observe the formal orientation presentation and are there to answer questions about 

available programs and to discuss training options. 

The two demonstration sites in California used orientation as the place for applicants 

not only to begin, but also to complete the enrollment process. Potential participants were 

to select their career field and intended training program at the orientation, information 

needed for completing the standardized process form. Many participants had to attend an 

orientation more than once, as they were unprepared to identify a career field and training 

program at the first session. To address this, military partner staff tried to prescreen 

potential participants during telephone conversations to inform them of orientation 

expectations and help them to be prepared. When potential participants needed to return to 

the orientation to complete enrollment, they skipped the group presentation segment and 

were first in line to meet one on one with workforce partner staff. 

2. Orientations Occurred in Locations Convenient for Potential Participants 

Sites aimed to hold orientations in a convenient location for the spouses. The majority 

conducted them on base or at base housing, but in a few instances they held them in other 

locations. In Bremerton, Washington, orientations were initially held at a community center 

located within base housing for Kitsap NAS, but demonstration staff quickly realized this 

location had insufficient parking and was inconvenient for many spouses, and subsequently 

moved orientations to the One-Stop Career Center, which was centrally located between the 

participating bases, had ample parking, and provided computer access. Originally, North 

Carolina held two types of orientations for spouses in different locations. The orientations 

held at Fort Bragg and Pope AFB served as an introduction to the demonstration, while the 

orientation at the One-Stop Career Center, occurring after potential participants received 

military approval, discussed workforce expectations for the demonstration and served as a 

36 
 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part I Mathematica Policy Research 

first step in obtaining workforce approval. At the time of the site visit, interview 

respondents disclosed plans to merge the two orientations into one, because attending two 

orientations is inconvenient for potential participants. 

3. Most Sites Held Group Orientations; a Few Held Individual Sessions 

Nearly all demonstration sites arranged for group orientation sessions on a regular basis 

(Table IV.2). Group orientations offered an efficient process for informing potential 

participants about eligibility requirements, allowable career paths and training fields, and the 

enrollment process. The frequency of group orientation sessions ranged from monthly to 

weekly, depending on the demonstration site, attendance at orientations, and the number of 

bases participating at the site. For example, in Colorado the two lead bases recruited 

potential participants from three nearby military bases, so five bases were involved in the 

demonstration. Staff convened orientations on a regular basis at three of them, and 

potential participants could attend an orientation at any location. Fort Carson orientations 

were held weekly, Peterson AFB orientations semi-monthly, and Air Force Academy 

orientations monthly. 

A small number of demonstration sites used individual orientation sessions either as 

their primary format or as an alternative format to accommodate participants’ schedules. In 

Maine and at the Kaneohe Marine Corps Base in Hawaii, after an initial large-scale briefing 

to introduce the demonstration to the community, all orientations with potential participants 

were conducted individually. In Maine, they took place at the BRAC Transition Center or 

the base’s family support center, and at the Marine Corps Base in Hawaii, they were held 

primarily at the base’s family support center (see Box IV.2 for more on Hawaii’s orientation 

formats). In one Florida site, individual orientations were held at NAS Jacksonville’s 

education center. Through the individual format, center staff not only introduced the 

demonstration, but also provided education counseling focused on the potential participant’s 

career and training goals. In this site, the lead base also recruited military spouses from 

another nearby base, where staff convened weekly group orientations to potential 

participants. 

Box IV.2. Hawaii: Conducting Orientations Through Alternative Formats 

The four military bases in Hawaii each decided on their approach for introducing the demonstration to 

potential participants. While each of them included standard approaches of group and individual 

introductions to the demonstration, two also developed alternative methods for orienting spouses. 

The base’s education center at Pearl Harbor Navy Base developed a self-briefing option. Potential 

participants can listen to an audio recording of the briefing session and simultaneously scroll through 

presentation slides describing the demonstration and enrollment process. Potential participants who remain 

interested can schedule an individual appointment to discuss schools and training programs. 

Military staff from the Kaneohe Marine Corps Base emphasize flexibility when introducing potential 

participants to the demonstration. Recognizing the potential schedule conflicts with an in-person 

orientation, this base also uses email to assist spouses interested in learning about the demonstration. The 

key staff person at the family support center corresponds with spouses through email to provide a short, 

informal introduction to the demonstration. 

37 

 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part I Mathematica Policy Research 

CHAPTER V 

OPENING AND MANAGING ACCOUNTS 

While the demonstration intended that participants self-manage the way they use 

their CAAs, staff at both workforce partners and military partners reported 

expending significant effort opening new accounts and managing existing ones. 

Responsibilities for opening an account were typically shared between the workforce and 

military partners, and once the account was opened, the workforce partners assumed most, if 

not all, of the responsibility for managing it. This chapter discusses the processes used by 

states and sites to open and manage CAAs and the roles that each partner played in account 

operations. Section A covers the steps associated with opening an account, and Section B 

discusses the steps for managing accounts. 

Key Findings on Opening and Managing Accounts 

•	 Opening an account was guided by the demonstration-specific process form, which military partners 

were responsible for approving and workforce partners reviewed as part of their enrollment process. 

•	 Career and education counseling was available from multiple sources, including workforce and military 

partners and educational institutions. Generally, potential participants could work with the staff person 

with whom they felt most comfortable. 

•	 Using the flexibility allowed for account creation, some sites developed processes that placed extra 

burdens on participants, such as requiring them to provide substantial documentation or to complete 

multiple steps prior to approval of their accounts. 

•	 Ten sites used vouchers to issue payments to training programs, following the WIA model. One site 

used a reimbursement process. 

•	 Sites asked participants to engage in regular followup on their progress in training programs, typically 

by providing their grades after each term. 

39 
	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part I Mathematica Policy Research 

A.	 Opening a Career Advancement Account 

Before a potential participant could receive education and training funds through this 

demonstration, workforce and military demonstration staff worked together to review each 

candidate’s eligibility and approve the account’s opening. The implementation study 

identified four steps that sites consistently followed when completing this process: 

1.	 Potential participants attended a formal orientation session to learn about the 

demonstration and the process for opening an account. 

2.	 Following (and in some cases, during) orientation, potential participants 

provided requested information to help complete the demonstration-specific 

process form developed by DOL and DoD. 

3.	 Next, potential participants met with workforce partner staff to review the 

approved process form and finalize demonstration enrollment. 

4.	 During this account opening process, potential participants had access to 

career and education counseling from a variety of sources. 

This section discusses the second, third, and fourth steps in opening an account, as well 

as the definition of an open account. Chapter IV discussed the first step, orientation. 

1. Military Partners Were Responsible for Approving a Standardized Process Form 

That Guides Account Establishment 

DOL and DoD developed a standardized process form that guided the steps to enroll 

in the demonstration and open a CAA. The process form required that participants provide 

identifying information about themselves and their service member spouses, whom the form 

refers to as their “military sponsor.” It also required that they identify their intended 

education plan, including career goal, intended program of study, and intended education 

institution. The form also included sections for identifying each participant’s military 

education center and servicing One-Stop Career Center; at many sites, these sections were 

completed before participants received them. Also, the form included a section to verify 

military eligibility by requesting the signatures of the voluntary education officer and the 

wing/base/garrison commander. Base leadership had the option of designating the 

signature authority for military verification to other persons. 

As DOL and DoD intended, staff with the military partner began the review and 

approval of the process form. This included certifying that the potential participant met 

military criteria, and on some bases it included reviewing the selected career field and 

education or training program. Staff at the education centers or the family support centers 

asked potential participants to provide their military identification, and in some sites their 

service member spouses’ military orders, to document eligibility. The process of reviewing 

potential participants for military eligibility was simplified in April 2008 when participation 

criteria were expanded to include spouses married to service members of any rank. 

40 
 

 

	 

	 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part I Mathematica Policy Research 

While the process form listed the voluntary education officer and wing/base/garrison 

commander for approving the form, in practice the sites had flexibility to designate approval 

authority to other persons. Most bases delegated such authority to either the education 

center (done at five sites) or the family support center (two sites), and one base maintained a 

review by the base leadership’s office. The remaining three sites allowed flexibility by 

sharing this responsibility between the education center and family support center, though in 

different ways (Box V.1). 

Box V.1. Implementing Flexibility in Approving the Process Form 

Three sites shared responsibility for approving the process form between the education center and the 

family support center. Sites took different approaches when sharing this responsibility. 

•	 The two sites in California asked their family support centers to review the process form for 

military eligibility, while the education centers ensured that the selected career field and 

training program met demonstration requirements. 

•	 In the Hawaii site, each of the four participating bases determined the military office 

responsible for approving the process form. Two bases assigned process form approval to 

the education center, one assigned it to the family support center, and one allowed either the 

education center or the family support center to approve. The base that allowed either office 

to approve the form required that all participants meet with an education center 

representative, even if the form was approved at the family support center, to discuss the 

suitability of their training plans. 

2. Workforce Partners Reviewed the Process Form and Completed Enrollment 

The process form guided the workforce partner’s enrollment of the participant. When 

the One-Stop Career Center received the military-approved process form from the applicant 

or military center, its role was to fill in information on the servicing One-Stop Career Center, 

note whether the account was awarded and if so for what amount, and finally fax the 

completed form to the education support office for DoD, known as Defense Activity for 

Non-Traditional Education Support (DANTES). In determining the participant’s eligibility, 

One-Stop Career Center staff also reviewed the participant’s selected career goal, education 

goal, and training program as listed on the form to ensure that they were appropriate to the 

demonstration and for the individual. 

In all sites, the workforce partner was responsible for officially enrolling participants in 

the demonstration. This responsibility was typically allocated to the workforce staff 

member(s) assigned to the demonstration, an arrangement that allowed staff to work with 

participants from their enrollment and continued throughout their education or training 

program. However, in three sites, it was eligibility specialists from the One-Stop Career 

Center who approved the process form, though they did not have a subsequent role working 

with or tracking participants. While front-line staff reviewed and approved participants’ 

eligibility, they did not always have final signature authority. A few sites required review and 

41 
 

 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part I Mathematica Policy Research 

approval not only from front-line staff but from supervisors and/or the One-Stop Career 

Center Director, depending on the site. 

Workforce partners asked potential participants to provide a variety of documentation 

to enroll in the demonstration. Frequently, these papers mirrored what was asked of people 

receiving an ITA. At a minimum, applicants were asked to document their citizenship or 

right to work and to show proof of selective service enrollment. At the extreme, one site 

asked potential participants to provide their social security card, birth certificate, marriage 

license, military orders, driver’s license, verification of residence, and military identification. 

In a few sites, the military partners considered the extent of paperwork requested excessive 

and duplicative. Staff at one site noted that because military spouses must provide a good 

deal of documentation when they receive their military identification card, asking them to 

provide those documents again just to enroll in this demonstration was unnecessary. In their 

view, the military identification card should be sufficient. 

One-Stop Career Centers in at least Information Requested in Education Plans seven sites required that applicants 

submit an education plan in addition to • Selected education or training program 

what was provided on the process form. 

The format of the education plan was not • Documentation that participant applied 

standardized, and content could vary to, or was accepted by, the educational 

institution across sites. However, providing the 

plan allowed the workforce partner not • Program start date only a chance to review the selected 

career field and education or training • Anticipated program end date program but also the opportunity to 

ensure that the participant applied for • Total program cost enrollment in the education or training 

program (and potentially was accepted) 

and that the program could be completed within the demonstration’s 24-month time frame. 

One-Stop Career Center staff at one site said that they used the provided education plan to 

discuss the program’s appropriateness with the potential participant. For example, if the 

education plan noted that four classes per term were required to complete a program, the 

workforce partner staff person could explore whether the potential participant had the 

needed supports, such as child care, to make that possible. 

3. Participants Guided Whether They Received Career or Education Counseling 

In accordance with the demonstration’s principle of self-management, potential 

participants could receive career or education counseling, although they were not required 

to. If interested, participants could receive guidance from demonstration staff in selecting a 

career field of interest or in identifying a suitable education or training program. Counseling 

typically occurred when the potential participant was working on the process form, but it 

could also be provided if the participant wanted to switch career fields or training programs 

or when a participant’s education plan was being discussed. 

42 
 

 

 

	 

	 

	 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part I Mathematica Policy Research 

When requested, staff of military and workforce partners were willing to provide indepth counseling to potential participants. Staff at all the demonstration sites indicated that 

a portion of their potential participants needed at least some guidance in selecting a career 

path and education or training program. Across sites, staff estimated that the portion of 

participants who needed and received any counseling ranged from 15 to 85 percent. 

A unique aspect of this demonstration was that staff from multiple organizations were 

qualified to provide career or education counseling to potential participants. Many of the 

staff at the education centers and family support centers on the bases and One-Stop Career 

Centers had experience outside or before the demonstration in providing the types of 

counseling that some participants needed (see Box V.2). In addition, staff at the education 

institutions that participants attended also had skills in counseling people on career paths 

and training options. This common counseling skill set likely contributed to demonstration 

sites’ sharing the responsibility of providing career or education counseling (Table V.1). At 

all sites, staff from the military bases, in particular from the education center, provided 

counseling on career selection or education programs. Illustrating the fact that multiple 

entities participated in counseling, potential participants at five sites could receive counseling 

from either the military or the workforce partner or from counselors at educational 

institutions. Staff at sites reported that participants usually sought counseling from the 

demonstration partner or collaborator they were most comfortable with. 

Box V.2. Bremerton, Washington: Flexibility and Consistency in Counseling 

In Bremerton, Washington, all partners had experience providing career and education counseling and 

agreed to serve in this capacity. Participants needed to request assistance from a partner, and typically the 

partner approached by a participant then provided counseling. Recognizing that different systems adopt 

different counseling approaches, the partners agreed to follow the operating rule of the education center and 

provide the participant with three choices for training programs. In addition, the partners embraced the 

self-managed account approach by encouraging the participant to make training decisions. Beyond these 

common operating principles, counseling varied by provider. 

•	 The education center guided participants to a military-sponsored online interest inventory, called the 

Discover® Assessment. This tool takes about one hour and helps people identify a career path. In 

addition, education center counselors worked with spouses to identify available training programs 

and the pros and cons of each, including cost factors. 

•	 NAS Kitsap’s family support center had the smallest role in counseling. When provided, counseling 

tended to consist of talking with potential participants about career fields during orientations. 

Family support center staff recommended their available resources, including a range of interest 

inventories such as the Myers-Briggs®. 

•	 Staff from the One-Stop Career Center provided the most consistent career and education counseling 

to participants when reviewing the demonstration process form. All potential participants 

obtained an education plan from their selected training program, which identified their start date, 

the courses to be completed, the estimated completion date, and the total program cost. 

43 
 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part I Mathematica Policy Research 

The nature of the counseling provided to potential participants depended on which 

partner was providing it. Military partners tended to offer participants a set of tools 

different from those offered by workforce or education partners, as different resources were 

available to them. For example, participants could complete the Discover® Assessment, as 

education centers covered the cost of completing the assessment for service members and 

their families. However, all counseling and related tools focused on identifying career 

interests, determining an appropriate career path, identifying available training opportunities 

in the chosen career field, and navigating education enrollment. 

Across demonstration sites, staff reported a wide range in the typical amount of time 

spent with a participant. Someone needing little counseling or guidance might have spent a 

few minutes with staff from the military base on eligibility matters and less than an hour with 

workforce staff completing enrollment tasks. In comparison, a participant who was unsure 

of his or her career or training interests might have spent up to 10 hours with staff from the 

military base and/or workforce center. 

Table V.1. Partners Involved in Career and Education Counseling 

Partner or Collaborator Number of Demonstration Sites 

Only Military Partners 

Military or Workforce Partners 

Military Partner or Education Institution 

Military or Workforce Partners, or Education Institutions 

2 

3 

1 

5 

Source: Analysis of site visit interview information and other written documents provided by the 

11 sites. 

Note: N = 11 sites. 

4. Sites Varied in the Time Needed to Complete the CAA Approval Process 

Among the sites, the report time needed to complete the full approval process varied 

from one day to several weeks or more. The length of time required to receive approval 

comprised two components. First was the time potential participants needed to gather their 

required documents and make specified decisions. Second was the time used by either the 

military or the workforce partner for reviewing the process form, receiving required 

signatures, and completing additional enrollment steps. Some sites developed an approval 

process in which, once potential participants had the required documents, they could receive 

approval in one meeting. As discussed in Chapter IV, the two sites in California adopted 

this approach; participants were able to complete the approval process during their weekly 

orientations, though they often attended orientation more than once since they often did not 

have all the documentation completed at their first orientation. The Georgia site and the 

two sites in Washington also emphasized speedy approval once documents were gathered. 

44 
 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part I Mathematica Policy Research 

Sites that were not able to complete enrollment during a meeting tended to need about 

two weeks from the time the process form and additional materials were submitted to the 

receipt of final approval. In one site in Florida, the potential participant provided the 

completed and military-approved process form and supporting documentation to the OneStop Career Center. The center then needed two weeks to complete its internal review, 

which also included a review by the WIB. In North Carolina, applicants provided the 

completed process form and supporting documentation to the education center on base. 

The education center reviewed the form and transmitted the application to the One-Stop 

Career Center, which then scheduled a meeting with the potential participant to complete 

the approval. Staff in North Carolina estimated that it took about two weeks from the time 

the potential participant submitted the form to the education center to final approval. The 

Hawaii site would not complete a demonstration enrollment, including final approval of the 

process form, until the payment arrangements with the selected education institution were in 

place. This led to a potentially long waiting period, especially if the selected institution was 

new to the One-Stop Career Center or not located in the local community. 

5. Sites Did Not Use a Consistent Definition for Approving or Opening an Account 

All sites faced the challenge of defining when a CAA was officially open. Most often, 

participants completed the approval process prior to starting an education or training 

program, which led to a gap between the time when a site obligated CAA funds for a 

participant and when a site actually paid an institution on behalf of a participant. The 

general rule implemented by DOL and DoD was that an account could be approved prior to 

the start of education or training but was to be considered open only when the participant 

began attending the program. 

In reality, however, sites defined when they considered a CAA to be open differently. 

To some extent, these differences reflected varying expectations for what participants were 

to complete during the CAA approval process. Examples of this variation may be illustrated 

through four sites and what they completed as part of that process, as follows. 

In the two California sites, participants were asked to select a career field and available 

education or training program in order to complete the approval process, but they were not 

required to complete the application or enrollment process for their selected program. With 

this definition, the California sites did not expect all participants who completed the process 

actually to follow through with enrolling in an education or training program and opening an 

account. The looseness of this approval approach made it challenging to manage the 

amount of grant funding obligated. To address this, these two sites instituted a rule that all 

approved CAAs would expire in 90 days unless the participant enrolled in an education or 

training program. The California workforce partner sent each participant a letter as the 

expiration date approached, specifying steps to take if the participant was still interested in 

using the CAA. If a participant had not started using the CAA by the expiration date, or had 

not contacted the workforce partner about the situation, the account was closed and 

obligated funds were re-entered into the pool of available resources. 

Two other sites were more stringent about when they approved a participant’s CAA. 

The Georgia site asked that interested participants bring in documentation of their 

45 
 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part I Mathematica Policy Research 

acceptance into and enrollment in their selected education or training program. This meant 

that the only remaining step once they approved a CAA was to establish a payment system 

with the selected institution to pay the participant’s training fees. The other site, Hawaii, 

actually completed this step of establishing a payment system with the chosen education 

institution before approving a participant’s CAA. 

B. Managing Open Accounts 

Once approved and opened, the CAA then progressed to the management stage. Since 

accounts can remain open for up to two years, the account management process transitions 

through different phases. At the time of the site visits, some phases, particularly those 

occurring when participants renew a CAA for year two, were just being defined. Managing 

open accounts involved (1) developing systems for issuing payments to education 

institutions; (2) tracking participants with open accounts to ensure that they remain in good 

standing with their training program; and (3) handling processes such as renewing accounts 

for a second year, closing accounts when participants either drop out of or complete 

training, and de-obligating funding when participants use less money than was originally 

obligated. 

1. All but One Site Used Vouchers to Guide Payments to Education Institutions 

After approving the participant’s CAA, the workforce partner issued payment to the 

participant’s selected education institution. Depending on the length of an education or 

training program, sites issued payment either for the entire program or for only the first 

term. All but one of the demonstration sites used their existing processes for WIA and ITAs 

for issuing payments. With the speedy start-up required for the demonstration, using these 

systems allowed sites to enroll participants quickly and begin issuing training funds. 

Paralleling the ITA system, the most common approach for issuing payment was 

through vouchers. Typically, the workforce partner would provide the participant with a 

voucher that the participant would in turn provide to the selected education institution. To 

receive payment, the education institution would invoice the workforce partner, who would 

then submit payment. Education institutions would often need to provide their tax status 

and tax identification number to allow the workforce partner to process the transaction. 

The one site that did not use an existing process was in Georgia, the only state 

participating in the demonstration where the grant from DOL and DoD did not go to the 

state Department of Labor. In Georgia, the Governor’s Office of Workforce Development, 

the grant recipient, did not have experience issuing payments of this nature to educational 

institutions. Ultimately, the state developed a reimbursement system that asked participants 

to pay invoices first. Georgia then issued payment to the school, and the school in turn 

issued a reimbursement to the participant. When reflecting on the process of developing 

their system, grant staff in Georgia did not think it was overly difficult for them or 

participants. Two particular staff challenges mentioned were (1) understanding the 

paperwork each institution required for processing invoices, and (2) identifying the 

appropriate people to work with at the institutions. As the number of open CAAs in 

Georgia grows, the process of issuing payment to institutions is becoming easier, a message 

46 
 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part I Mathematica Policy Research 

echoed by many sites, regardless of their process for issuing payments. As in other sites, 

they have developed clear processes with the most commonly attended schools and need 

only to identify a new path when a participant selects an education institution that no other 

participant has selected. 

Sites did not issue direct payments to participants for other expenses covered by the 

demonstration. Instead, sites would develop payment systems similar to those used for 

paying tuition, which allowed participants to use CAA funds for these expenses. Often, sites 

had separate transactions to pay for tuition and for books or supplies, since different 

departments or offices were responsible. Some participants described these processes as 

taxing, but they followed the procedure to receive the assistance. 

2. Most Sites Easily Established Payment Arrangements with New Education 

Institutions, but Two Faced Challenges 

Many sites appeared open to developing payment arrangements with any eligible school. 

Anecdotes from across the sites mentioned isolated payment problems that often seemed 

quickly resolved. However, at least one site appeared unable to resolve its payment 

challenges with new schools, and staff there described a reluctance to build new 

arrangements. At this site, discussion group participants reported delays in receiving 

approval for their CAA, particularly if they were trying to attend an unfamiliar school. In 

response, staff at one of the participating military bases informed potential participants 

about the schools that would be quickly approved by the One-Stop Career Center. 

Typically, these were familiar local schools, and staff encouraged potential participants to 

select from them (without explicitly prohibiting attendance at other schools). 

Thus, potential participants were told of the delays that might arise if they tried to go to a 

school for which payment arrangements had not already been negotiated. While this might 

have affected the range of programs selected, it also helped spouses avoid unnecessary delays 

if they were satisfied choosing a school that was already approved by the workforce partner. 

Interview respondents in another site described a challenge with issuing payments to the 

community colleges in their area. Initially, community colleges were not participating in the 

demonstration, as they had a preferred payment process that was different from what the 

One-Stop Career Center required for a CAA. Eventually, the workforce partner met with 

some of the community colleges to resolve differences in language that were reportedly part 

of the problem. For example, while community colleges were unaccustomed to invoicing 

for tuition costs, they did have a process that allowed for payment deferment. Once the 

One-Stop Career Center and schools came to the understanding that these were essentially 

the same processes, the schools often agreed to participate. 

3. Sites Expected Participants to Maintain Regular Contact with Staff 

Staff at demonstration sites emphasized their need to remain in contact with 

participants while they attended their education or training programs. The purpose of this 

ongoing contact was to monitor a participant’s progress in training, often ensuring that the 

participant remained in good academic standing from one term to the next, and to maintain 

a relationship that would allow demonstration staff to assist in job searches and track the 

47 
 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part I Mathematica Policy Research 

participant’s subsequent employment status. DOL and DoD did not establish expectations 

for how frequently demonstration staff were to followup with participants or to define what, 

if anything, was to be provided as documentation of continued involvement in training. 

Without clearly stated expectations, sites developed their own processes, which differed 

from one another in intensity. 

Demonstration sites asked that participants maintain regular contact with demonstration 

staff, typically from the One-Stop Career Center. Followup contact gave One-Stop Career 

Center or military center demonstration staff an opportunity to hear how the participant was 

doing in training and to assess if there were emerging barriers that might impede continued 

progress. Across the demonstration sites, One-Stop Career Center staff typically led in 

encouraging and conducting this ongoing contact. However, at least two sites explained that 

staff at their bases’ family support center took on this role. 

The general expectation was that followup would be informal and that participants 

would initiate contact either by emailing demonstration staff or by calling the office. At the 

time of the site visits, demonstration staff appeared to have limited knowledge of how 

closely participants adhered to followup expectations and could not comment on whether 

they would need to implement procedures for ensuring that followup occurred. However, 

the ongoing nature of the education and training programs gave participants a strong 

incentive to adhere to followup expectations; they would not receive their next payment if 

they did not followup. Staff generally reported that most participants were still attending 

school and therefore had not completed their programs, not even short-term ones. These 

staff did not yet appear to be making a significant effort to track participants’ outcomes. A 

longer-term study would be able to gather more information on participants’ outcomes and 

efforts to track them. 

The required regular contact with demonstration staff ranged from monthly to once per 

term (Table V.2). Some sites that asked participants to maintain frequent contact used their 

experience working with this population to guide their expectations for followup frequency. 

At one site, military and workforce staff described many of their participants as young, naïve, 

and in need of ongoing “hand-holding,” which led them to ask that participants contact staff 

every 60 days. 

One site did not specify a frequency for participants to maintain contact with 

demonstration staff, but the workforce staff at this site described having regular ongoing 

contact with participants. Interview respondents from this site mentioned that one challenge 

in following up with participants on their training was the heavy workload associated with 

enrolling participants in the demonstration, which limited the time available for followup. 

48 
 

 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part I Mathematica Policy Research 

Table V.2. Expectations for Frequency of Participant Followup 

Number of Demonstration Sites 

Expected Followup Frequency with Expectation 

Monthly 3 

Every 60 Days 2 

Each Term 5 

Not Specified 1 

Source: Analysis of site visit interview information and other written documents provided by the 

11 sites. 

Note: N = 11 sites. 

Sites expected participants to provide ongoing documentation of their progress in 

training. Many participants selected education and training programs that continued over 

multiple terms, which led sites to require that they provide grades to the One-Stop Career 

Center in order to continue receiving CAA funding. Interview respondents from at least one 

site also mentioned receiving grades from some educational institutions to document 

participant progress. When receiving grades directly from participants, staff reviewed 

whether the participant was in good academic standing with the institution; they generally 

did not implement specific expectations as to what grades were to be maintained. 

However, three sites 

Requested Followup Documentation from Participants described specific expectations 

regarding grades. One of these • All sites asked participants to provide grades at the sites encouraged participants to end of each term 

maintain at least a C average 

• Three sites asked participants to provide time sheets across classes and required that 

that reported on their class attendance participants pass all their 

classes. Another site required 

that participants maintain a 2.0 

average in their education or training program. A third site had the most stringent 

expectation: participants had to receive at least a 2.0 in all classes. This last site claimed that 

most schools had the same expectation, so it was a reasonable policy. 

Beyond grades, three sites asked participants to provide attendance records or time 

sheets as part of their monthly followup. One-Stop Career Center staff from one site 

explained that their attendance sheets showed the number of hours the participant attended 

class over the month and asked the instructor to confirm that the participant was 

maintaining satisfactory grades, conduct, and attendance. At two of the sites that requested 

attendance records, One-Stop Career Center demonstration staff explained that participants 

were to submit them monthly and in person to the One-Stop Career Center. Both these 

sites asked that the professor sign the time sheet before it was submitted, and participants 

were expected to obtain that signature. The third site did not describe such a requirement. 

49 
 

 

 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part I Mathematica Policy Research 

This site allowed flexibility in the way time sheets were submitted, accepting them by fax, by 

email (scanned), or in person. 

4. Ongoing Account Management Involved Tracking Funds and Renewing and 

Closing Accounts 

As participants continued to attend education and training programs, demonstration 

sites managed a growing number of open accounts. The tracking of participants and the 

ongoing progress reports made by participants supported this account management by 

allowing demonstration staff to remain aware of participants’ program status. Key actions 

when managing accounts were as follows: 

• Tracking spent training funds and evaluating outstanding training costs 

• Closing accounts when participants stopped attending training 

• Renewing accounts for a second year9 

Tracking Funds and Evaluating Outstanding Training Costs. Tracking available 

demonstration funds was a critical, if complicated, process for sites. In planning, sites 

estimated the number of CAAs they anticipated funding over the course of the 

demonstration, based on a set of assumptions about how much funding each participant 

would receive. Sites calculated the average amount of funding they would provide a 

participant each year and estimated the percentage of participants that would renew their 

account for a second year. 

While these estimates provided sites with a guess at the number of CAAs they would 

issue, site staff still needed to maintain an accurate tracking of (1) their obligated funding, 

and (2) their actual payments to education institutions. Tracking obligated funding, which 

some sites referred to as “soft obligations,” offered a picture of the resources that sites 

anticipated providing to education institutions for the participants with approved or open 

CAAs. This was critical for sites, since the programs that participants attended often lasted 

multiple semesters. By tracking obligated funding, sites were able to calculate the 

outstanding demonstration funding that could be provided to future participants. 

Recognizing that obligated funding was an estimate of the actual funding that participants 

would need to complete their education or training programs and achieve certifications, sites 

also needed to track their actual payments to assess outstanding demonstration funding for 

future participants. Site staff reported that there were often differences between the initial 

amounts documented and the final amounts actually invoiced by the institutions. In 

9 At the time of the site visits, existing policy allowed participants to spend up to $3,000 in each of two 

years. Since then, a December 2008 policy change allowed participants in five states to spend up to $6,000 

over the course of the two years. Thus, the concept of renewing an account might no longer be applicable in these 

states. 

50 
 

 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part I Mathematica Policy Research 

addition, staff in some sites indicated that they had apparently underestimated the average 

funding per participant and the percentage of participants seeking a CAA for a second year. 

Sites tracked CAA funds using two systems, developing their own tracking mechanisms 

to supplement their existing fiscal management tools. Demonstration staff often developed 

internal files, typically Excel spreadsheets, that tracked obligated and actual payments issued 

for each participant the first year of their CAA and estimated payments for their second year 

if their education or training program would last more than 12 months. Workforce partner 

staff from several sites also mentioned tracking funds through their state or county financial 

systems, but this tracking was external to the demonstration program. These systems did 

not consistently offer sufficient tracking, however, and created problems for sites. The dualsystems sites were limited in how well they could track funds paid out for a participant, or 

for the demonstration as a whole, which created a challenge when calculating remaining 

funds for new participants. For example, One-Stop Career Center staff in one site reported 

that their county financial system allowed them to enter obligations only one quarter ahead. 

Here, staff had to maintain separate tracking to ensure that all obligated funding was 

accounted for. 

Closing Accounts. At the time of the visits, sites had little if any experience with 

closing accounts, since their participants were still in training. In fact, at the time of data 

collection, sites had very little experience with closing accounts for any reason, and about 

one-third of the sites mentioned that they had no process in place for attending to this. 

A few sites did have limited experience in closing accounts when participants did not 

successfully complete their selected education or training programs, having been forced to 

drop out either because their academic performance had been poor or because their service 

member spouses had been unexpectedly transferred. In the latter cases, participants had the 

option of continuing training in their new locations; demonstration sites worked with these 

participants to make arrangements with education institutions at the new locations. Not all 

participants took this option. 

Sites described three plans for when and how they would close participants’ accounts. 

One plan mentioned by the largest number of sites was to close accounts after the 

participant used the available funding and obtained their certification/degree. A second plan 

that sites mentioned was to not close the CAA until the participant was employed; the third 

plan was to not close the account until the site completed followup on the participant’s 

employment outcomes. 

Renewing Accounts. CAAs have a maximum account value of $6,000, as participants 

can renew their CAA for a second year. Demonstration sites would begin renewing 

accounts one year after they issued their initial accounts—early 2009 for most sites. At the 

time of the site visits, sites had started planning for their renewal process but did not have 

concrete plans in place. Staff reported that they generally planned to institute few additional 

steps for renewal but expected participants to be in good academic standing. Workforce 

staff in four sites offered the following about their renewal plans: 

51 
	 

	 

	 

	 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part I Mathematica Policy Research 

•	 One site explained that their renewal decisions will be made by One-Stop Career 

Center case managers and will depend on the participants’ grades and their 

regularity in meeting followup expectations. 

•	 Another site planned to follow their procedures for providing installment 

payments during the school year when considering account renewal. This 

entailed documenting that the participant was enrolled in training and was in 

good academic standing; this site said they anticipated a higher rate of renewal 

than initially anticipated, as participants were selecting longer training programs 

than expected. 

•	 A third site noted that participants must be passing their program to receive a 

renewal. 

•	 In yet another site, staff stated that they had not thought about the renewal 

process, other than that they would authorize a voucher when the second year 

began. 

52 

 

	 

	 

	 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part I Mathematica Policy Research 

CHAPTER VI 

EXPERIENCES OF CAA PARTICIPANTS
 

The insights and experiences of military spouses participating in the MilSpouse CAA 

Demonstration help to complete the picture of the demonstration’s early 

implementation experiences. While previous chapters provided the perspective of 

workforce and military leaders and staff, some information can be provided only by 

demonstration participants. For example, participants can inform us about how they 

experienced aspects of the demonstration, from first hearing about the CAA to interacting 

with demonstration staff. Without participants’ perspective, this report would be telling only 

half the story about the demonstration’s implementation. 

This chapter relies on group discussions held at each site to report on participants’ 

perspectives. However, before presenting these perspectives, the chapter first describes the 

data collection method and its limitations (Section A) and then provides the background 

characteristics of those who attended the discussions (Section B). Section C describes 

participants’ experiences with key aspects of the demonstration, from why they decided to 

Key Findings on Participants’ Experiences 

•	 Participating spouses were overwhelmingly positive about the demonstration and the 

opportunity it gave them to obtain more productive employment and improve their family 

life. They also expressed interest in attending education or training because it kept them 

occupied during their spouses’ deployments. 

•	 Participants reported learning about the demonstration through the military’s outreach 

efforts. The most common source of information appeared to be the service member 

spouse, who learned about the demonstration through emails and other forums. 

•	 Given that most participants were still attending their education and training programs, the 

effect of participation in the demonstration on families’ future attachment to the military 

was unclear. While some participants felt their improved career prospects could encourage 

their spouses to remain with the military, others were preparing for their spouses’ retirement 

from the military. 

53 
 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part I Mathematica Policy Research 

participate to what their overall experience was, and Section D summarizes how participants 

see the CAA affecting their future lives. Finally, Section E provides participants’ 

recommendations for improving the MilSpouse CAA Demonstration. 

A. Data Source and Limitations 

During each site visit, military or workforce partner staff convened a group of military 

spouses who were participating in the demonstration. Implementation study team members 

asked partner staff—usually staff from one of the military bases—to recruit about eight 

participants with diverse experiences, such as participants married to service member 

spouses from across the ranks and pursuing different careers allowed under the 

demonstration. Since the site visit schedule did not allow for group discussions with 

participants on each of the 18 lead bases, each lead implementation study team member 

worked with the site contacts to identify the base that would host the discussion. As shown 

in Table VI.1, the implementation study team held group discussions on each of the five lead 

naval bases but on only one of the six lead air force bases. 

Table VI.1. Military Service Branches in the Demonstration and Participant Discussions 

Number of Bases 

Branch In Demonstration In Participant Discussions 

Air Force 

Army 

Navy 

Marine Corps 

6 

5 

5 

2 

1 

4 

5 

1 

Total Number of Bases 18 11 

Source: MilSpouse CAA Demonstration site visits, 2008. 

Across the 11 sites, 53 military spouses attended these group discussions. The size of 

the groups ranged from 1 to 9 military spouses, and the average length of each group 

discussion was 70 minutes. At the start of each discussion, participants completed a short 

form about themselves and their families. The group discussion leader also informed them 

that their responses on the form and their comments during the discussion would remain 

confidential. 

While participants across sites often expressed similar views, these views are not 

conclusive findings about military spouses’ experiences, for three reasons. First, the 53 

participants who joined in these discussions were not randomly sampled, so their views 

cannot be considered representative. In addition, those who participated make up only a 

small fraction of all participants. According to the MilSpouse CAA Demonstration weekly 

report, the 53 participants represented only 2 percent of all participants as of August 18, 

2008 (DOL/DoD 2008). 

54 
 

 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part I Mathematica Policy Research 

Second, the experiences of military spouses who might have been interested in a CAA 

but did not receive one—perhaps because they decided against opening an account or 

possibly because they were denied—are also important to learning about spouses’ 

experiences. Although the design for the site visits included group discussions with 

nonparticipating military spouses who had expressed interest, only three sites were able to 

gather nonparticipants together. In total, nine nonparticipating military spouses participated 

in these discussions. Thus, most of this chapter provides the participant perspective. 

Finally, almost all the participants were still in their education and training programs, so 

they could only surmise how they might use their credentials and degrees and how the CAA 

would affect their family’s future. 

B. Background of Discussion Group Participants 

Based on discussions with military and workforce demonstration staff, the MilSpouse 

CAA Demonstration participants who attended the group discussions appeared to be typical 

of the spouses served by the demonstration. The average discussion participant was a 31­

year-old woman with an average of 1.8 children (Table VI.2). Most of the participants with 

children had at least one child under age 13 (not shown). A majority (60 percent) were 

married to military personnel whose ranks were included in the demonstration’s initial 

eligibility criteria (E1 through E5 and O1 through O3). All the participants had at least a 

high school diploma, as required by the demonstration, and a quarter of them also had a 

four-year college degree or higher. About half of them had service member spouses in the 

Navy, and a third had service member spouses in the Army; the rest were affiliated with the 

Marine Corps or the Air Force. 

Most participants were using their CAAs to pursue careers in the education or health 

care fields (not shown). About 40 percent of them indicated that they were working toward 

a certificate or credential in the health field. Examples of chosen occupations in this field 

were nursing, medical billing, and dental assistance. Early childhood education was a 

common career choice for the 30 percent of participants pursuing a career in the education 

field. Other participants were pursuing careers in other fields, such as business, finance, and 

human resources. These patterns mirror those emerging across the demonstration. 

According to the MilSpouse CAA Demonstration weekly report for August 13, 2008, the 

health care field is the most popular, with just over half of all CAA recipients pursuing a 

degree or credential in this field, followed by education, which was selected by about a fifth 

of the participants (DOL/DoD 2008). 

C. Military Spouses’ Participation in the Demonstration 

While previous chapters discussed the demonstration’s implementation, from sites’ 

initial recruitment efforts to their account management processes, this section provides the 

participants’ perspectives on four aspects of the program: (1) reasons for participating, (2) 

initial awareness of the program, (3) satisfaction with the allowed career opportunities, and 

(4) general experience with the demonstration and staff. 

55 
 

 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part I Mathematica Policy Research 

Table VI.2. Characteristics of Military Spouses in CAA Participant Discussions 

Gender 

Female 

Male 

Average Age 

Service Branch 

Navy 

Army 

Marine 

Air Force 

Rank 

E2-E5 

E6-E8 

W1-W5 

O1-O3 

O4-O10

Spouses with Children 

Of Those with Children, Average Number of Children 

Education 

High school/GED 

Some postsecondary education 

Associate’s degree 

Bachelor’s degree 

More than bachelor’s degree 

Percentage of Participants 

(unless otherwise noted) 

91% 

9 

30.8 

49% 

34 

9 

8 

49% 

34 

2 

11 

4 

72% 

2.5% (1.8 averaged across all 53) 

21% 

45 

9 

23 

2 

Source: MilSpouse CAA Demonstration site visits, 2008. 

N = 53 participants. 

1. Spouses Participated to Improve Themselves and Their Families 

Across the discussion groups, reasons CAA participants gave for participating in the 

demonstration often focused on improving themselves or their families’ circumstances. Five 

categories fully describe participants’ reasons, as expressed during the discussions. 

To Further Career and Job Prospects. Demonstration participants appreciated the 

opportunity to use their CAA to further their job prospects or to avoid the temporary, lowpaying jobs that many often had to take. The CAA provided hope to participants, especially 

those without advanced education credentials, that they would be able to use the CAA to 

avoid a low-wage, dead-end job. One participant said she has been “working dead-end jobs 

and two jobs, and surviving” without making any progress in her employment or financial 

prospects. 

56 
 

 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part I Mathematica Policy Research 

Five Common Reasons for Participating 

•	 To Further Career and Job Prospects. Military spouses participated to jump-start their careers or 

avoid temporary low-paying jobs. 

•	 For Self-Improvement. Participants appreciated the opportunity the demonstration provided to do 

something for themselves and their own self-esteem. 

•	 To Attend School. Participants were interested in using the CAA to pay for school because (1) they 

were already attending school, (2) they had always wanted to return to school but lacked the finances, or 

(3) they wanted to make use of the “free money” the military was offering. 

•	 To Contribute to the Household. Participants felt that their CAA-financed degree or credential would 

enable them to find better-paying jobs so that they could contribute to their families’ financial well-being. 

•	 To Ease the Stress of Military Life. Attending school was a positive distraction during deployment of 

service member spouses, and also eased their concerns. 

In addition, the CAA could help participants pursue a career that they could take with 

them on their next permanent change of station (PCS) and could improve their resumé. 

These participants expressed frustration with the disruptions of their frequent moves and the 

effect this had on their job opportunities. For example, one participant mentioned that 

while her service member spouse easily slips into his military job at each new station, she has 

to start again from the bottom. Another participant mentioned how her family’s frequent 

moves affect her resumé and how potential employers perceive her (see Box VI.1). 

Box VI.1. One Participant’s Erratic Work History 

“. . . and the lady actually asked me over the phone, ‘Can you guarantee me you’ll be here three years from 

now?’ I said, ‘No, of course not, I’m a military spouse.’ . . . And she said, ‘You know, honestly, I’ll tell you 

right now, we’re not in a position to hire you. We need someone that we know is going to be here.’ And 

that’s another problem. You know my resumé looks like a Stephen King horror novel—six months here, 

a year here, so on and so forth—so when you put that in front of an employer, even though they know 

you’re a military spouse, nine times out of ten they don’t want to take a gamble on it. Because I can’t tell 

them I’ll be here a year from now. I don’t know.” 

For Self-Improvement. In most of the discussions, at least one participant expressed 

the view that they had put their lives on hold while they supported their service member 

spouse’s military careers and, in many cases, raised their children. In the military, one 

participant said, “Your spouse’s career comes first—always—so that means that in a lot of 

ways you do a lot of sacrifices where you end up putting yourself last and you kind of 

forget about yourself.” Participants felt that the CAA was finally a chance to do something 

for themselves. The benefits ranged from improving one’s self-esteem to having the 

opportunity to do something just for oneself (Box VI.2). 

57 
 

 

 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part I Mathematica Policy Research 

Box VI.2. The CAA Can Improve a Participant’s Self-Esteem 

“[As a military spouse,] you lose your identity and everything that you become is defined by your spouse . . 

. so that’s been the biggest struggle for me, trying to find my own niche and my own identity. And a lot of 

people have the common misconception that military spouses want to work for money . . . but my reason 

for wanting to work is for my own passion and my own identity.” 

To Attend School. Generally, the participants were grateful for the opportunity 

offered by the MilSpouse CAA Demonstration. The demonstration was especially attractive 

to those participants who were already in school or had hoped to go to school but lacked the 

resources to pay tuition. Education costs were prohibitive either because their service 

member spouses made too much to qualify for financial aid or because the family struggled 

to make ends meet as it was. Those participants who were in school before the 

demonstration began indicated that they had paid for most of their education out of their 

pockets or through private or student loans. Participants praised the demonstration for 

offering much needed financial assistance toward their continued education (Box IV.3). 

Box VI.3. The CAA Provides Spouses the Opportunity and Motivation to Attend School 

Financial aid makes schooling possible for some military spouses. 

“[What I wanted to do] . . . required [me] to have a real estate license, but I just couldn’t at this point— 

with paying for my son’s day care and the cost of living and everything—couldn’t afford to do it out of 

our own paycheck. So thank goodness [the CAA] was here for me . . . to get the education that I 

needed.” 

“What appealed to me? Oh, the fact that it wasn’t going to be coming out of my pocket appealed to me 

a great deal. Because I was going to come over to [school] and go to school anyway. . . . When I saw 

that, it was honestly like a mirage. It was too good to be true.” 

The short time period and the timing allow military spouses to participate. 

“I had started going to school when my husband first entered the army. And, due to PCSing, I had to 

stop going to school, I had to stop working. My life kind of just came to a stop, so I could go on with 

my family. And so, it’s kind of hard trying to juggle the military life and trying to be a spouse of a 

military [personnel]. Because as soon as you pick up something, it’s time to go. And it’s very difficult 

to even get done with anything. So, with the CAA coming around, it’s actually really great, ’cause it 

shortens your program [time] quite a bit.” 

“I feel it was like that last push that finally got me to do it . . . because I feel like a lot of times I was like 

putting myself to the side in a lot of ways, because I wanted this for a long time but I kept working and 

I kept doing this, I kept doing that . . . so then when this came up, I felt like no more excuses, just do 

it!” 

Not only did the financing help, but the CAA, with its offer of $3,000 and prospects of 

a credential in a short time, provided spouses with an opportunity they could not ignore (see 

Box VI.3). Some participants said they could no longer put off going to school because of 

58 
 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part I Mathematica Policy Research 

finances, and others said they could not pass up an opportunity that the military was 

offering. 

To Contribute to the Household. Whether they planned to return to the workforce 

or were looking forward to higher-paying jobs, many participants saw the CAA as a way to 

relieve their spouses of the full responsibility of their family’s financial well-being. One 

participant felt that her eventual income would bring more “balance to the household.” 

Another said that the program would relieve service member spouses from “feeling like they 

. . . have to pay for everything.” 

To Ease the Stress of Military Life. Participants in a few of the discussions 

mentioned that enrolling in school relieved both them and their service member spouses of 

stress, especially during a deployment. As illustrated in Box VI.4, attending school could 

provide participants a constructive distraction from worrying about their deployed spouses, 

and participants’ engagement in school could help deployed spouses feel assured that their 

spouses back home were keeping busy. 

Box VI.4. The CAA Can Ease the Anxiety of Military Life 

Provides a positive distraction during their spouses’ deployments 

“Having something like [the CAA] for me helps me cope with having [him] . . . on a detachment or a 

deployment. . . . I did the last one by myself, and so it definitely helps keep me happier, keeps [me] from 

focusing on something else besides, ‘Woe is me, I’m lonely.’” 

“I was going crazy. His last deployment was through this last Christmas. He was gone for six months, 

and it was just me and [my daughter] alone and he didn’t want us traveling ’cause he was all worried that 

we were going to get hurt. . . . I would just go to Wal-Mart, I would dress up and just go to Wal-Mart, 

just to see if someone would talk to me or say hi or anything. . . . Since I’ve started school, I’m so much 

more normal now.” 

Relieves deployed spouses’ concerns about leaving 

“My husband wants to make sure I am taken care of. . . . He can go at any time. . . . He wants to know . 

. . that I’m not just sitting there.” 

59 
 

 

 

	 

	 

	 

	 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part I Mathematica Policy Research 

2. Participants Learned About the Demonstration Through the Military’s Outreach 

Efforts 

Participants learned about the 

Six Main Ways Participants Learned demonstration through the strategies that sites About the Demonstration employed to advertise it (see Chapter IV). 

Many participants said that they first heard •	 Service member spouse about the demonstration from their service •	 Military club or office member spouses, who in turn had first heard 

about it from emails posted to their units or at • Friends and family the orientations for newly assigned military 

•	 Educational institution personnel. Another common source was the 

clubs and offices on base. For example, the • Newspaper/flyer participant might have heard the 

demonstration mentioned at a military spouse •	 Website 

club meeting or picked up information at the 

base’s education or family support center. 

Participants also stressed the importance of word of mouth, saying that they had heard about 

the program through a friend or extended family member and that they, in turn, do their 

best to spread the word about the program to others. According to one participant: “I went 

to my neighbors . . . people outside of my command. . . . I was knocking on the doors in my 

neighborhood saying, ‘You have to go do this.’” 

Another source of information was education institutions. As discussed in Chapter IV, 

some education institutions conducted their own publicity to attract possible CAA recipients 

to their degree programs. In other cases, participants were already enrolled at a school when 

informed of the financial benefit offered through the CAA. 

A few participants said that they first heard about the program through a posting in the 

newspaper or flyers. During one discussion, participants suggested that newspaper postings 

are ineffective because military spouses do not often read the papers. Another source 

mentioned by a few participants was the Internet, as some came across the demonstration as 

they were exploring ways to further their education or training. 

3. Participants Appeared Committed to Their Career Choice 

Most participants were satisfied with the career paths allowed by the demonstration. 

They felt that the demonstration-defined careers would enable them to maintain productive 

employment through their spouses’ frequent moves (Box VI.5). Several participants 

mentioned that they would not have just settled for one of the careers allowed under the 

demonstration. To succeed, one spouse said, you had to have a passion for the career. 

Several participants said that they could not pursue the career field that they had initially 

desired because it was not allowed, according the demonstration guidelines, or because an 

appropriate education or training program was unavailable locally. Careers in the health field 

commonly fell into the latter category of an education or training program being unavailable 

in the area. For some participants, the education for their initial career choice would have 

60 
MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part I Mathematica Policy Research 

taken more than two years to complete. Two participants from one site said that they were 

initially interested in becoming registered nurses, but since the education program would 

have required longer than two years to complete (as required by the demonstration), they 

enrolled in a licensed practical nursing program instead. They plan to use this as a steppingstone toward eventually becoming registered nurses. Nursing and other health programs 

also had a limited number of open slots and narrowly defined entry requirements, which 

caused participants to seek other careers. For instance, one military spouse had been 

interested in a training program to become an x-ray technician, but since the local program 

had a waiting list, she enrolled in a phlebotomy/EKG program instead. 

Box VI.5. Participants Saw the Value in Pursuing Portable Careers 

“You, as a spouse, cannot flop around from base to base with your significant other and get a job without 

having one of these [portable] jobs that’s listed [in the demonstration materials].” 

“These are high-demand career fields we’re being trained in. It really kind of makes it a moot point where 

you’re being stationed at. . . . I really have a definite career path I’m taking, and I can apply it anywhere we 

move.” 

A few participants mentioned that their first career choice was not permitted by the 

demonstration. For instance, one mentioned an initial interest in criminal justice but 

switched to the health field. Often, military or workforce demonstration staff helped these 

participants identify a program in an allowed field. The few nonparticipants who 

participated in discussions also mentioned the restrictiveness of the career options as one 

reason they did not have an account. Some of these spouses were interested in unpermitted 

career fields, such as cosmetology, psychology, and social work. 

4. Participants Had Positive Program Experiences 

With only a few exceptions, participants stated that their experiences with the 

demonstration had been positive. In most of the 11 discussions, participants mentioned 

how much they appreciated the attention, support, and professionalism of the 

demonstration staff—either at the One-Stop Career Center or at one of the military base 

centers. Apart from some glitches that the first participants encountered, they said the 

process was generally smooth. 

However, in one discussion group, participants expressed frustration with the 

demonstration staff, saying that they could not get ahold of their assigned case worker. In 

this site, one participant said she was almost denied entry into her educational program 

because the staff did not make the payment to the school in time. 

One aspect of the demonstration that received mixed reviews from participants was 

online courses. Not all spouses felt that they could learn well in an online community, and 

many preferred to take courses in classrooms. Other spouses could not have participated 

without the online courses, which allowed them to take care of their children and pursue 

61 
 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part I Mathematica Policy Research 

their degree or credential. According to one participant, military spouses are bound by 

moving and young children, “so being able [to get an education] online or in a classroom is 

really great.” 

D. Perceived Effects of the CAA on Their Families’ Future 

While participants could not predict how the CAA would affect their futures, most 

believed that their participation would have positive effects on their families. However, they 

did not share similar expectations for their spouses’ future attachment to the military. 

Echoing their reasons for participating in the demonstration, participants indicated that 

the demonstration and their eventual careers would be valuable to their families. Some 

spouses said that by attending education or training programs, they were setting a good 

example for their children: it was positive for their children to see them actively engaged. 

Others mentioned how hard military life can be on families and said that the demonstration 

was giving them a way to be valued and to keep busy. A few spouses mentioned how hard 

the military life can be on couples and mentioned the high rate of military divorces; one 

participant said that she and her husband “would’ve divorced without [the CAA].” 

Spouses participating in the discussions did not offer consistent views on how they felt 

the demonstration would affect their families’ decisions on whether or not to remain tied to 

the military. Certainly, participants were pleased that the military was recognizing them 

through the provision of the funds; many felt that this was needed recognition and reward 

for the sacrifices they make as military spouses. 

However, the pleasure of being recognized in this way may not necessarily translate to 

longer-term attachment to the military. While the group discussions could not provide 

estimates of the number of participants likely to remain with the military or insights into the 

types of families that were most likely to remain, the discussions do illustrate the different 

attitudes held by participants and their families (see Box VI.6). For instance, in more than 

half the discussions, at least one participant said that the demonstration was a way to help 

the family prepare for a life outside the military. This was true for several participants whose 

service member spouses were already scheduled to retire. For them, the demonstration was 

unlikely to have any effect on their future attachment to the military. Other participants said 

that attending school and pursuing a career would enable their family to consider a life 

outside the military. They felt that having their own career and income could give their 

service member spouses more career options, so they would not have to feel compelled to 

continue their service in order to provide for their families. One spouse implied that while 

the money offered through the demonstration will help her family, it will not convince the 

family to remain in the military, given her spouse’s multiple deployments. 

For other participants, the opportunities provided through the CAA might make the 

decision to stay with the military easier. These participants felt that their increased 

satisfaction with their lives and careers would help their service member spouses continue 

their military careers. 

62 
 

 

 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part I Mathematica Policy Research 

Box VI.6. Two Views of the Effect of the Demonstration on Families’ Future with the Military 

The service member spouse is likely to remain in the military due to the military spouse’s new 

career possibilities. 

“He’s thinking now of staying [in the military] ’cause he was worried. . . . He knew that I was not 

completely happy. . . . Now that he knows that I will have work, college, I think he will say, ‘I will 

stay because I know you are happy too.’” 

The military spouse’s new career opportunity could make it easier for the service member 

spouse to leave the military. 

“My husband does not want to stay in the Army. . . . He is very adamant that he wants to leave the 

Army when his time is up. I do not want him to leave the Army, but this career move for me, this 

path, I’m hoping will at least enable him to leave the Army if he is really desiring to do that when 

his time is up.” 

E. Recommendations for the Future 

Across the sites, participants tended to share four suggestions for future improvements 

to the MilSpouse CAA Demonstration: 

1. Offer child care 

2. Expand the career fields 

3. Allow for flexibility in the length and cost of programs 

4. Include all bases 

While many participants took advantage of online courses and thus did not need child 

care to attend classes, others mentioned that the lack of child care restricted their options. 

Because of military schedules and deployments, participants could not count on their service 

member spouses to assist with child care. And as a result of their frequent relocations, they 

rarely had other family members available to help with children. These participants said that 

child care was a major roadblock to their success and wished that a little of their CAA 

money could pay for child care expenses. 

63 
	 

	 

	 

	 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part I Mathematica Policy Research 

Participant Recommendations 

•	 Provide child care support to help 

participants with young children. 

•	 Expand the career opportunities to 

include other fields. 

•	 Allow for flexibility in length of 

program or annual costs. 

•	 Offer CAAs to military spouses of 

all service member personnel. 

Participants also made recommendations 

that would expand the demonstration in 

multiple ways—to cover additional career 

fields, to cover more costs, and to be available 

at all bases. Across the discussions, they 

mentioned friends at other bases who could 

not participate, the restrictions to their career 

paths because of the need to format their 

education plans to fit within the $3,000 

annual ceiling, and the need to rethink their 

plans based on the allowed career 

opportunities. Despite these drawbacks, 

participants’ strongest recommendation was 

to continue the program. Almost universally, they felt that the demonstration was changing 

lives. 

64 
 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part I Mathematica Policy Research 

CHAPTER VII 

SUMMARY AND KEY FINDINGS 

I

n 2007, DOL and DoD began their joint initiative, the MilSpouse CAA Demonstration, 

to support military spouses in their pursuit of portable postsecondary degrees or 

industry-recognized credentials. Across the 11 demonstration sites, participants and 

staff from site partners and collaborators voiced excitement about the opportunities offered. 

Indeed, according to the MilSpouse CAA Demonstration weekly report, the sites had 

awarded a total of 3,639 accounts in the demonstration’s first 10 months (DOL/DoD 2008). 

This final chapter draws on information from across earlier chapters to discuss the lessons 

learned as a result of sites’ early implementation experiences and challenges (Section A). It 

then discusses next steps for studying the demonstration and suggests further avenues for 

research (Section B). 

A. Key Lessons 

This report on the sites’ early experiences implementing the demonstration offers 

several lessons for replicating the demonstration and forming future military and workforce 

partnerships. The lessons are intended for use by policymakers who may refine the current 

demonstration, by current grantees as their sites mature, and by new sites looking to 

implement similar partnerships. They draw on the analyses in the previous chapters. 

1. Pre-established or Early Partnerships Implemented the Demonstration Quickly 

Establishing partnerships and collaborations early fostered a quick start-up, which was 

one of the goals of DOL and DoD. In each site, the key partnership was between military 

staff from education centers and/or family support centers and workforce staff from local 

WIBs and One-Stop Career Centers. Sites also formed collaborative relationships with 

representatives from education institutions and, in some cases, with other institutions, such 

as the chamber of commerce. At some sites, these partnerships had already been formed 

through earlier joint efforts, and by using these existing relationships to plan proactively for 

implementing this demonstration, they were able to begin issuing CAAs quickly. 

65 
 

 

 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part I Mathematica Policy Research 

Similarly, other sites found that forging partnerships quickly contributed to success. 

Through face-to-face interactions during the grant’s kickoff in Washington, DC, and after 

returning home, partnerships were solidified during discussions about how each entity would 

contribute to implementation and how workflow would occur. This early planning 

established communication channels that continued as implementation progressed, allowing 

sites to discuss emerging challenges and plan for modifications. Partners in sites that were 

unable to forge good working relationships and establish clear communication channels 

faced challenges that stalled their implementation. 

2. Strong Partnerships Build on Each Partner’s Skills and Experiences 

Sites formed the needed partnerships between the military and workforce systems, using 

the strengths and experience of each partner. For example, building on their experiences 

working with military families to reach spouses, military partners conducted formal 

marketing efforts and also cultivated word-of-mouth marketing using existing networks on 

bases, such as military spouse groups or the ombudsman program; these strategies were also 

mentioned by participants in discussion groups. The workforce partner built on its 

experience providing training services to customers through WIA and ITAs, a system that 

was already understood by some of the main education providers in the affected 

communities. 

3. The Demonstration Expanded the Number and Types of Education Institutions 

Partnering with Workforce Agencies 

This demonstration included a broad definition of eligible training institutions. 

Participants could select any training institution as long as it was nationally or regionally 

accredited by the U.S. Department of Education (or an accrediting body recognized by the 

Department of Education) or on the state’s Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Eligible 

Training Provider List. One result of this broad definition was that sites, particularly the 

workforce partners, expanded the education institutions with which they had relationships to 

include online institutions and distance learning programs available through military bases. 

Workforce partners learned how to work with these new providers, as they needed to 

develop procedures for paying for participants’ training expenses. Most sites were open to 

creating these new relationships, although they required staff time up front to develop 

payment procedures. Often, once it was established, the system was in place for the next 

participant. A few sites exhibited reluctance to developing these new relationships, which 

was related to delays in negotiating a payment process with the new school. In one site, one 

of the participating military bases addressed this by informing participants about the 

institutions where bureaucratic delays would be minimal and accounts would usually be 

approved quickly. 

4. Education Institutions That Conduct Outreach Require Oversight 

In addition to training participants, educational institutions could also serve as 

collaborators by assisting with marketing efforts. While some sites viewed this approach as 

helpful, others dissuaded educational institutions from directly advertising the demonstration 

66 
 	 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part I Mathematica Policy Research 

to potential participants. When educational institutions marketed the demonstration, staff 

from either the workforce partner or the military partner needed to oversee their efforts to 

ensure that the demonstration was being portrayed accurately. 

5. Even with Account Self-Management, Intensive Staff Time Was Required 

Workforce and military staff at demonstration sites found that the demonstration 

required significant time to fulfill the stated expectations. Participants appreciated this 

individualized attention, even if it was time-consuming for staff to provide. Partners required 

significant staff resources to support (1) marketing the demonstration, (2) assisting potential 

participants in selecting a career field or training program and opening accounts, and (3) 

carrying out ongoing account management. In some cases, the staff resources needed were 

greater than the workforce partner had initially planned for. In addition, staff from military 

partners expressed concern that they did not receive funding for the demonstration even 

though they needed to supply staff resources. While military sites met this request, it was by 

asking military staff to add demonstration responsibilities to their existing workloads. 

6. Managing CAAs Posed New Accounting Challenges for Workforce Partners 

For the workforce partner, managing accounts introduced a new set of challenges, 

which required time to address and resolve. Most significantly, sites had to track the funds 

promised and provided to CAA participants so that they could determine how many more 

CAAs to fund. Because of the limited nature of the demonstration, the desire to open CAAs 

with as many participants as possible, and the need to ensure that grant funds are not overobligated, sites had to have a good sense of their obligated, spent, and remaining grant funds. 

To make sure they were not under- or over-obligating funds, sites needed to track two 

levels of funds—obligations and actual spending—and they often developed multiple 

systems in their attempt to track this information. While that was helpful, staff then had to 

spend time resolving differences between systems and ensuring that accurate and 

appropriate information was reported and recorded. Such account management challenges 

are not unique. Another DOL demonstration exploring the use of Personal Reemployment 

Accounts encountered similar problems that required staff attention to resolve (Kirby 2008). 

B.	 Next Steps for the Current Evaluation and Suggested Further 

Research 

This report has discussed the early implementation of the MilSpouse CAA 

Demonstration, drawing primarily on qualitative information gathered during site visits to 

each demonstration site. Because several questions remain about the success of the 

demonstration at meeting its objectives—assisting military spouses’ entry into portable 

careers and retaining families in the military—a longer-term, quantitative study is required. 

As a first step toward assessing these objectives, this current study is collecting quantitative 

data from the demonstration sites. Sites are entering participant data into a data tool, 

developed by Coffey Consulting, LLC, which collects information on participants’ 

characteristics, their use of the CAA, their program completion and credential attainment, 

and their subsequent employment and earnings. Data are being collected and entered for 

67 
 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part I Mathematica Policy Research 

participants who received a CAA after July 2008 through the end of the demonstration in 

June 2010. The final report of this current study will analyze the data collected through each 

site’s data tool about spouses who opened CAAs between early August 2008 and early 

February 2009. Since many participants at that date will still be participating in their 

education or training programs, the report will most likely be limited to providing 

information on participants’ demographic characteristics and, as the data allow, on their 

shorter-term outcomes, such as program completion, and longer-term outcomes, such as 

employment attainment. 

Further research will be necessary to fully understand the short- and long-term 

outcomes for demonstration participants, including whether the demonstration has affected 

their ability to maintain their portable careers and their families’ future with the military. 

Ideally, this research would collect information on participants’ short-term outcomes, such 

as their success at completing their CAA-funded programs and obtaining their credentials, 

and their longer-term outcomes, such as their employment status, the relationship between 

their current job and the credential they earned, their longevity in that chosen career, and 

their families’ attachment to the military. A longer-term study would also serve as an 

opportunity to learn from participants how their participation in the demonstration and their 

achievement of a credential affected their careers and their families’ decisions about 

remaining attached to the military. 

68 

 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part I Mathematica Policy Research 

REFERENCES
 

Department of Labor (DOL)/Department of Defense (DoD). “MilSpouse CAA 

Demonstration Weekly Report.” Washington, DC: DOL/DoD, October 27, 2008. 

Harrell, Margaret C., Nelson Lim, Laura Werber Castaneda, and Daniela Golinelli. “Working 

Around the Military: Challenges to Military Spouse Employment and Education.” Santa 

Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2004. 

Kirby, Gretchen, Margaret Sullivan, Elizabeth Potamites, Jackie Kauff, and Elizabeth Clary. 

“Responses to Personal Reemployment Accounts (PRAs): Findings from Seven 

Demonstration States.” Submitted to the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and 

Training Administration: ETA Occasional Paper 2008-07. Washington, DC: 

Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., January 2008. 

Lim, Nelson, Daniela Golinelli, Michelle Cho. “Working Around the Military: Revisited.” 

Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2007. 

Savych, Bogdan. “Effects of Deployments on Spouses of Military Personnel.” Santa Monica, 

CA: RAND Corporation, 2008. 

69 


 

PART II: 

Additional Findings from the Military Spouse Career 

Advancement Accounts Demonstration: 

Implementation Progress and Participants’ 

Characteristics and Plans
 

December 21, 2009 

Karen Needels 

Heather Hesketh Zaveri 

 

 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

We would like to thank many people for their contributions to this report. Foremost, our thanks go 

to the people who provided, collected, or recorded the information used in this report. This includes the 

spouses of military personnel who participated in the Military Spouse Career Advancement Account 

(CAA) demonstration. It also includes staff who collected and entered data, those who answered our 

questions as we analyzed the data, and those who shared their experiences during in-person visits or 

telephone calls about the demonstration. These staff represent participating states, local workforce 

system entities, military installations, and educational institutions. We appreciate the thoughtful 

comments of all who participated in this effort. 

This report has benefited from the support and guidance of the U.S. Department of Labor, 

Employment and Training Administration (ETA) and the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), Office of 

the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Military Community and Family Policy (MCFP). Staff at 

ETA’s Office of Policy Development and Research (OPDR), particularly the evaluation’s project officer, 

Janet Javar, and Wayne Gordon, have provided support and feedback throughout the study. This report 

benefited greatly from their careful review of an earlier version. We also thank Sara Gallagher Williams 

and Christine Ollis from ETA’s Office of Workforce Investment; MaryAnn Donovan from OPDR; and 

Carolyn Baker, Aggie Byers, Pamela Cunningham, Cathy Flynn, and Mike Tevnan from MCFP for 

contributing to our understanding of the demonstration and assisting us in our ongoing communications 

with the sites. 

We also benefited from the assistance of staff at other organizations who participated in the 

evaluation efforts. These staff include Lester Coffey, Rex Hall, Steve Kornblatt, Charles McGlew, and 

Bill Sullivan of Coffey Consulting, LLC. Coffey staff designed a data collection tool for sites to record 

data about participants, provided assistance to sites on using the tool, and conducted several site visits to 

assess demonstration implementation. Staff from DTI Associates, Inc. and its partner, SRI International, 

conducted telephone interviews with site staff to learn about sites’ experiences implementing the 

demonstration after site visits were conducted. In particular, Stephanie Hamilton and Kristine Nowicki 

from DTI and Fergus Murphy and Li Gwatkin from SRI provided leadership for this effort. 

We also appreciate the help from other Mathematica staff. Linda Rosenberg served as project 

director for the study, capably guiding the effort. Both she and Jeanne Bellotti carefully reviewed an 

earlier draft of this report. Anne Bloomenthal provided expert advice about the data tool development. 

Andrew McGuirk diligently coordinated with staff at sites about their data files, while Judy Cannon 

skillfully processed data during our analysis. Patricia Ciaccio aptly edited the report and Cindy McClure 

did an excellent job producing it. 

We gratefully acknowledge these many contributions.

 Karen Needels 

 Heather Hesketh Zaveri 

iii 

 

 

 

 

 


 

	 

	 


 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

CONTENTS
 

Chapter Page 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................xi

 I INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................1 

A. THE MILITARY SPOUSE CAA DEMONSTRATION .........................................1 

1. Eight States Participating in the Demonstration .................................2 

2. Seven Principles Guiding MilSpouse CAA Implementation ..................4 

3. A Common Workflow Has Guided Opening and Management of 

CAAs.................................................................................................5 

B. OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY ........................................................................7 

1. Research Questions and Study Design ...............................................7 

2. Contributions to the Study Objectives ...............................................9 

C. ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT ..............................................................9 

II MILSPOUSE CAA DEMONSTRATION IMPLEMENTATION ..................................11 

A. FINDINGS FROM IMPLEMENTATION STUDY REPORT ................................11 

B.	 UPDATING IMPLEMENTATION STUDY REPORT FINDINGS .........................14 

III PARTICIPANTS’ ENROLLMENT PATTERNS OVER TIME.....................................17 

A. AGGREGATE WEEKLY REPORT DATA, ANALYSIS METHODS, AND 

LIMITATIONS .........................................................................................18 

B.	 PATTERNS OVER TIME IN CAA AWARDS ..................................................19 

C. PATTERNS OVER TIME IN CAA AWARDS BY STATE...................................20 

D. PATTERNS OVER TIME IN CAA AWARDS BY INDUSTRY .............................24 

 IV SPONSORS’ AND PARTICIPANTS’ CHARACTERISTICS .....................................29 

A. DESCRIPTION OF THE INDIVIDUAL-LEVEL DATA, THE ANALYSIS
 

METHODS, AND LIMITATIONS ................................................................29 

1. The Sample Frame for Analysis........................................................30 

2. Analysis Methods ............................................................................31 

3. Data Limitations ..............................................................................32 

4. Overview of the Analysis Sample .....................................................33 

v 
 

 

 

 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 
 

	 
 

V 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

CONTENTS (continued) 

Chapter Page 

B.	 Characteristics of the Military Sponsors and the CAA Participants ..........37 

1. Characteristics of Sponsors .............................................................37 

2. Demographic Characteristics of CAA Participants ............................41 

3. Prior Employment Experiences of CAA Participants..........................44 

SPOUSES’ CAA ELIGIBILITY AND PLANS .........................................................53 

A.	 OVERVIEW OF THE PROCESS AND THE SPEED AT WHICH SPOUSES 

ACHIEVED CAA ELIGIBILITY ....................................................................54 

1. Key Steps and Dates in the CAA Eligibility Determination Process ....54 

2. Speed at Which Spouses Attained CAA Eligibility and Began Using 

Their CAA .......................................................................................56 

B.	 SPOUSES’ PLANNED CAA USAGE .............................................................61 

1.	 Planned Use of the CAA Funds and Target Credentials.....................61 

2. Characteristics of the Training Programs .........................................67 

REFERENCES .................................................................................................71 

APPENDIX A:	 SAMPLE FRAME FOR THE INDIVIDUAL-LEVEL
 

DATA ANALYSIS ....................................................................73 

APPENDIX B:	 MONTHLY STATISTICS ABOUT KEY DATES IN
 

THE CAA ENROLLMENT PROCESS ...........................................79 

APPENDIX C: ACTIVITIES AND EXPENDITURES DURING USE 

OF THE CAA ..........................................................................87 

vi 
 

 

 

 


 

	 


 


 


 


 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

TABLES
 

Table	 Page 

I.1 Military Spouse CAA Demonstration States and Sites ...................................2 

I.2 Military Spouse CAA Grant Funding and Target Number
 

of Account Awards ......................................................................................3 

III.1 Cumulative Number of CAA Awards Over Time, by State ............................21 

III.2 Cumulative Number of CAA Awards Over Time, by Target Industry ............25 

IV.1 Distribution of Military Spouses Across States and Sites, by Military 

Branch of Sponsor .....................................................................................35 

IV.2 Distribution of Military Spouses Across States and Sites, by Military 

Rank of Sponsor ........................................................................................36 

IV.3 Characteristics of Military Sponsors, by Military Branch of 

Sponsor .....................................................................................................39 

IV.4 Characteristics of Military Sponsors, by Military Rank of Sponsor ...............40 

IV.5 Demographic Profile of CAA Recipients, by Military Branch of 

Sponsor .....................................................................................................41 

IV.6 Demographic Profile of CAA Recipients, by Military Rank of 

Sponsor .....................................................................................................43 

IV.7 Labor Market History of CAA Recipients, by Military Branch of 

Sponsor .....................................................................................................45 

IV.8 Labor Market History of CAA Recipients, by Military Rank of 

Sponsor .....................................................................................................47 

V.1 Number of Days Between CAA-Related Events, by Military Branch 

of Sponsor.................................................................................................57 

V.2 Number of Days Between CAA-Related Events, by Military Rank 

of Sponsor.................................................................................................60 

V.3 Planned Use of CAA Funds and Target Credentials, by Military
 

Branch of Sponsor .....................................................................................62 

V.4 Planned Use of CAA Funds and Target Credentials, by Military
 

Rank of Sponsor ........................................................................................65 

V.5 Characteristics of Planned Training or Education Programs for 

CAA Recipients Who Planned to Participate in Them, by Military
 

Branch of Sponsor .....................................................................................67 

V.6 Characteristics of Planned Training or Education Programs for 

CAA Recipients Who Planned to Participate in Them, by Military 

Rank of Sponsor ........................................................................................69 

A.1 Presence of CAA-Related Dates in the Military Spouse CAA 

Demonstration Access Data Files...............................................................76 

vii 
	 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

TABLES (continued) 

Table	 Page 

B.1 Cumulative Number of CAA Awards Over Time..........................................82 

B.2 Dates of CAA Orientations, Intake, Eligibility Determinations, and 

Start of the CAA, by Military Branch of Sponsor .........................................83 

B.3 Dates of CAA Orientations, Intake, Eligibility Determinations, and Start of 

the CAA, by Military Rank of Sponsor.........................................................85 

C.1 Use of WIA Services in Colorado and Florida-Jacksonville, by Site ...............90 

C.2 Use of WIA Services in Colorado and Florida-Jacksonville, by 

Military Branch of Sponsor.........................................................................91 

C.3 Use of WIA Services in Colorado and Florida-Jacksonville, by Military 

Rank of Sponsor ........................................................................................92 

viii 

 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

FIGURES
 

Figure Page 

I.1 MilSpouse Career Advancement Accounts Flow Diagram ..............................6 

III.1 Military Spouse CAA Enrollments Per Month ..............................................19 

III.2 Military Spouse CAA Cumulative Enrollments Over Time ............................20 

IV.1 Sponsors’ Branch of Military Service ..........................................................38 

IV.2 Sponsors’ Military Rank .............................................................................38 

ix 


 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
 

In 2007, the Employment and Training Administration of the U.S. Department of Labor 

(DOL) and the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) began a joint initiative to support the spouses 

of military personnel (“military spouses”) in their pursuit of portable postsecondary degrees or 

industry-recognized credentials. Although military spouses tend to have more education than their 

civilian counterparts, they are generally employed at lower rates, in part because of the deployments 

and frequent moves common to families with a member in the military (Harrell et al. 2004; Lim et al. 

2007; Savych 2008). 

Through the Military Spouse (MilSpouse) Career Advancement Account (CAA) 

Demonstration, eligible military spouses can obtain an account to pay for education and technical 

training that will aid them in their careers. The theory underlying the demonstration is that 

attainment of a portable degree or credential will help the spouses enter, and advance in, the 

workforce even as their family relocates to other duty stations. A longer-term goal of the 

demonstration is to encourage the retention of the service member by improving the spouse’s job 

prospects and increasing the family’s satisfaction with military life. 

DOL contracted with Mathematica Policy Research and several other organizations to conduct 

an evaluation of the demonstration. Mathematica led the evaluation; Coffey Consulting LLC, 

(Coffey) supported the evaluation activities. With Mathematica’s guidance, Coffey designed a data 

collection tool, provided technical assistance to demonstration sites on using the tool, and 

conducted several site visits to assess demonstration implementation. DTI Associates, Inc., (DTI) 

and its partner, SRI International (SRI), conducted telephone interviews with site staff in spring 

2009 to supplement information that Mathematica and Coffey staff collected during summer 2008 

about sites’ experiences implementing the demonstration. 

The Demonstration 

In fall 2007, eight state workforce agencies received a grant to implement the MilSpouse CAA 

Demonstration: California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Maine, North Carolina, and 

Washington. CAAs have been offered only in selected areas in these states, where the participating 

military bases and the One-Stop Career Centers, which provide employment and training services as 

part of the nation’s public workforce system, are located. For this study, Mathematica identified 11 

sites in which the 18 lead military bases partnered with One-Stop Career Centers to provide CAAs. 

Seven of the eight states provided grant funding to the participating One-Stop Career Center(s) 

to fund and manage participants’ accounts. In Georgia, the Governor’s Office of Workforce 

Development maintained funding for the accounts, but provided grant funding to the One-Stop 

Career Center to work with demonstration participants. The participating military bases did not 

receive funding to support their role in the demonstration, although they were encouraged to 

leverage other resources to support the demonstration. They typically focused on marketing the 

demonstration, providing education and career counseling to interested military spouses, and 

confirming that applicants met the military criteria for eligibility. 

xi 
 

 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

In addition to directing the military and workforce entities to develop partnerships in the local 

area, DOL and DoD established six other demonstration guidelines: 

1.	 Eligibility focused on military spouses in need of credentials. Eligibility 

throughout the demonstration has been restricted to spouses with at least a high school 

diploma or General Educational Development (GED) credential at the time they have 

applied. In general, spouses who had at least a college degree were not eligible to use a 

CAA for additional education, although they could use one for the attainment of a 

credential, license, or certification. Initially, DOL and DoD also restricted eligibility to 

military spouses married to a service member/sponsor who was at the E1-E4 levels 

(junior enlisted service members), E5 level (noncommissioned officer), or O1-O3 levels 

(junior commissioned officers). (A “sponsor” is the service member through whom the 

military spouse could become eligible for a CAA.) In April 2008, this restriction was 

lifted, and military spouses of service members of all ranks became eligible. 

2.	 Selected training and education programs must meet demonstration criteria. 

DOL and DoD required participants to pursue education and training programs, and, 

ultimately, careers, in nationally recognized high-growth and high-demand fields. 

Originally, five fields were identified. During the demonstration, DOL and DoD 

expanded the list of eligible occupations and industrial sectors to include some types of 

jobs in other sectors. Military spouse participants can select any education or training 

program within these occupations or sectors, as long as it is nationally or regionally 

accredited or on the state’s Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Eligible Training Provider 

List. 

3.	 CAAs are to be used primarily for education or training. CAAs are used only to (1) 

fund tuition for education and training programs and related expenses, such as books, 

fees, and equipment; and (2) pay for credentialing and licensing fees. CAAs cannot be 

used to fund supportive services, such as food, clothing, child care, or transportation. 

DOL and DoD encouraged One-Stop Career Centers and military bases to leverage 

other resources for supportive and other employment-related services. 

4.	 CAAs have a maximum value of $6,000 over two years. At the start of the 

demonstration, the initial maximum amount of the CAA was $3,000 for one year, 

beginning from the date that a participant entered an approved education or training 

program. The CAA could then be renewed for a second year for up to an additional 

$3,000. The actual value of a CAA is to be determined by the specific 

employment/training plan. In December 2008, DOL and DoD revised this policy so 

that participants in five states could spend the full $6,000 allotment at any time during 

the two-year period or by the end of the grant period in June 2010, whichever was first. 

5.	 CAA-funded training and education programs should lead to degrees or 

credentials. The education and training provided through a CAA must result in a 

postsecondary degree or industry-recognized portable credential in a high-demand field 

within two years. 

6.	 Military spouses should manage their accounts. Within the limitations set by the 

preceding principles, CAA recipients should make their own decisions, with limited staff 

involvement, about how they use their accounts. By self-managing their accounts, 

xii 
MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

military spouses have the flexibility to determine personal career goals and identify 

employment and training opportunities that support their individual preferences. 

The Study 

In conjunction with DOL and DoD, the evaluation team developed a two-pronged approach 

that consisted of an implementation study and a quantitative study. The implementation study has 

used qualitative information gathered about how the demonstration has provided services and 

developed strategies to overcome implementation challenges. An implementation report provides 

an overview of the demonstration and key findings about the demonstration’s partnerships, early 

implementation experiences, marketing efforts, and other topics (see Part 1). The primary 

information sources for the implementation study were in-depth site visits conducted shortly after 

the start of the demonstration. At most sites, interviews were conducted with staff from the state 

labor or workforce department, the participating Workforce Investment Board and the local OneStop Career Center, and the military partner, which usually consisted of the education and family 

support centers that provide support to service members and their families. When possible, 

evaluation team members also observed military spouses’ interactions with demonstration staff, such 

as orientation sessions when military spouses learned about the requirements. Finally, they 

conducted group discussions with participants who had opened CAAs. 

Additional information about the implementation experiences of sites was gathered through 

telephone interviews with demonstration representatives conducted by staff at DTI and SRI in June 

2009, after the implementation report was written. These interviews were conducted with 

demonstration staff representing the workforce partner and the military partner. The discussions 

focused on their processes and systems for managing CAAs, including tracking and de-obligating 

funds and closing accounts, and providing participants with support after they had completed 

training programs. Because sites did not have much experience with these facets of the 

demonstration at the time of the implementation study data collection activities conducted during 

spring and summer 2008, the spring 2009 interviews were able to expand the information about 

sites’ implementation experiences. The themes that emerged from these interviews are included in 

this report. 

The second prong of the study is a quantitative analysis of two types of data. One is on the 

number of CAAs awarded through mid-May 2009, according to states’ weekly reports to DOL. 

Using these data, an analysis provides information about the patterns over time in states’ awards of 

CAAs to military spouses, for all states combined, by state, and by industry. This information 

supplements findings in the implementation report about sites’ initial startups. The report also uses 

individual-level data for an analysis of the characteristics of the spouses and their sponsors, as well as 

spouses’ education and training plans for using the CAAs. The data include spouses who began 

their involvement in the demonstration between July 14, 2008, and early 2009. 

Because of timing issues related to data collection, the quantitative analyses contain information 

about a portion, but not all, of the spouses who ultimately will participate in the demonstration. In 

addition, because most spouses had not completed their training or employment by the time of the 

data collection, the individual-level data analysis does not contain information about spouses’ 

outcomes or long-term satisfaction with their families’ involvements in the military. Rather, it 

presents descriptive statistics on the characteristics of a sample of participants when they began their 

involvement in the demonstration. 

xiii 
 

 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

Thus, this report supplements the implementation study report to provide additional 

information on implementation issues and quantitative information about the characteristics of 

participants, as well as their plans for using the CAAs for participation in education and training 

programs and the attainment of credentials, licenses, or certifications to support careers in highwage, high-growth occupations. The findings from the study are useful for those who want to 

obtain timely information about the early experiences of demonstration sites, the characteristics of 

spouses who received CAAs and their military sponsors, and spouses’ plans for using their CAAs as 

of when they enrolled in the demonstration. 

Updates to the Implementation Study Report Findings 

This report draws upon a two-pronged strategy of analysis of three types of data to provide an 

update to the implementation study findings presented in Part I. The qualitative data focuses on 

operational aspects of the demonstration that had not been fully experienced in the early part of the 

demonstration, such as the processes and systems for sites’ management of CAAs and the support 

that sites provided to spouses after they completed their training programs. Additional qualitative 

information also was obtained about sites’ efforts to sustain the partnerships established between 

military and workforce entities as part of the demonstration. Quantitative data have been used to 

describe the patterns over time in states’ awards of CAAs to military spouses, the characteristics of 

the spouses and their sponsors, and spouses’ education and training plans for using the CAAs. 

Here, the main findings are presented in four sections. 

Sites’ Management of CAAs and Support to Spouses 

Tracking funds continued to be a complicated process for sites. As the demonstration 

progressed, sites developed processes for tracking and reconciling differences between obligated and 

expended grant funds, sometimes relying on more than one database. Some sites used one system 

for recording obligated funding for each participant, while another system tracked expended funds. 

Assigning fund management to one staff member (a strategy used by four sites) was reported to 

simplify the reconciliation process. 

De-obligating funds became a priority for sites after they obligated all of their initial accounts. 

Through reconciliation of grant funds, sites were able to identify unused money in CAAs and deobligate resources, freeing them to be allocated for use by other spouses. Two common reasons 

that some money was unused were that the participant did not complete a training program or that 

the training program cost less than originally anticipated. Four sites, all of which had waiting lists of 

interested spouses, described de-obligating funding as a top grant priority in the demonstration’s 

second year. At least four other sites were still awarding initial CAAs and, consequently, did not 

identify de-obligating funds as a top priority. 

Sites tracked participants during and after training programs, with varying degrees of intensity. 

All sites tracked participants while they attended their training programs, and about half the sites 

continued to track participants and offer support after they had completed their training program. 

To track training program progress, sites asked participants to provide, at a minimum, grades at the 

end of each semester or term. About half the sites also asked for midterm grades or reporting on 

attendance. Sites that provided support to participants who completed training programs typically 

offered the support through the One-Stop Career Center. Available services were similar to WIA 

supports, but several sites described their support as limited or less intensive due to lack of staff 

availability. 

xiv 
MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

Sites defined different milestones for closing accounts after training programs. Demonstration 

sites varied in when they closed CAAs, particularly for participants who completed their training 

programs. Sites used one of three approaches: (1) close accounts upon program completion and/or 

receipt of credential, (2) close accounts after participants gain employment, or (3) close accounts 18 

months after training program completion to allow time to follow up with participants regarding 

employment. One site reported that it kept accounts open until participants obtained employment 

so they could access the One-Stop Career Center’s employment resources. Sites were consistent in 

closing an account immediately after they identified a participant who stopped attending his or her 

training program. 

For most sites, the demonstration strengthened existing relationships, or facilitated new ones, 

between military and workforce partners. However, staff recognized that, without future 

opportunities, the formal partnerships might dissolve. One site had formal plans for sustaining the 

partnership by establishing an affiliate One-Stop Career Center on the military base, but that site 

expressed concern about sustaining the current level of service available at the affiliate center after 

the demonstration ends. 

Participants’ Enrollment Patterns Over Time 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration sites faced competing pressures as they began and managed the 

provision of CAAs to military spouses. Some of these pressures are unique to this demonstration, 

while others are likely to be found in many types of demonstrations. Sites typically wanted to award 

CAAs quickly so that participants could have enough time to attend their chosen education or 

training program for up to two years, before the end of the grants in June 2010. However, many new 

programs and demonstrations, such as this one, have difficulty getting services up and running, 

marketing the program, and balancing the enrollment of new participants with services or followup 

to existing participants. Additional challenges might arise if the sites need to incorporate 

modifications to policy and program rules or to take into account a scheduled end of the program or 

demonstration. In addition, site staff might want, or need, to spread work out so they can manage 

the workload effectively. 

Analysis of the aggregate data that states reported weekly to DOL provides insights about the 

patterns in CAA enrollments over time, across states, and across industries. As of May 15, 2009, 

which is almost 17 months after MilSpouse demonstration states were to have begun providing 

CAAs, they had awarded 5,366 CAAs (Figure ES.1). This represents 72 percent of their targets for 

the full demonstration period. The proportion of the target number of CAAs that had been awarded 

ranged across states, from 52 percent in Georgia to 101 percent in North Carolina. During spring 

2009, four of the six states had suspended the provision of new CAA awards for at least one month 

so they could manage their obligations to participants, assessing the amount of funds that could be 

allocated to new CAA awards after the de-obligation of funds from previously awarded CAAs. Two 

other states, Hawaii and Maine, had ceased awarding new CAAs before spring 2009. 

Education, training, or credentialing in the health care field accounted for over 2,900 CAAs, 

more than half of all CAAs that had been awarded so far. The education field, at 937 CAAs 

awarded, accounted for at least one out of every six CAAs (17 percent). The next most common 

fields were finance (slightly less than 10 percent of all CAAs) and business administration, which 

averaged about 7 percent of all awards even though it was not allowed early in the demonstration. 

xv 
 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

Characteristics of Sponsors and Participants 

Examining the backgrounds of military spouses makes it possible to assess who has been served 

by the CAA program. Furthermore, information about the characteristics of the CAA participants 

provides a context for the analysis of the spouses’ plans for their CAAs. This is especially important 

since, as the demonstration evolved, the grantees recruited, enrolled, and served military spouses 

with a wide range of characteristics and experiences. 

Individual-level data that site staff collected and provided to Mathematica was used for the 

analysis of the characteristics of military sponsors (the military personnel through whom spouses 

became eligible for CAAs), and the spouses who received CAAs. Furthermore, the data was used 

for analysis of spouses’ CAA plans. The analysis sample was restricted to spouses who enrolled in 

the demonstration between June 14, 2008, and when the data files were made in early 2009. 

Although the 2,630 included spouses are a large portion of all spouses who have enrolled in the 

demonstration as of early 2009, it is important to keep in mind that the set of spouses upon which 

the individual-level analysis is based differs from all spouses who received CAAs. Spouses from 

California and North Carolina were overrepresented in the analysis data, while spouses from Hawaii 

were underrepresented. Furthermore, no spouses from Maine were in the analysis sample. In 

addition, in some cases, the analysis needed to take into account that some information on the 

included spouses was missing. The discrepancies between the individual-level data and all spouses in 

the demonstration, as well as the prevalence of missing data, arise at least in part because the 

individual-level data collection began about six months after sites began awarding CAAs. 

Nevertheless, the analysis of the data can provide insights about the characteristics of sponsors and 

military spouses who received CAAs. 

Based on program eligibility rules, a military spouse becomes eligible for a CAA based in part 

on the characteristics of the sponsors. Eighty-eight percent of all spouses in the analysis sample had 

sponsors who were enlisted (Figure ES.2). About two-fifths of spouses had sponsors whose ranks 

xvi 
MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

would have made the spouses initially ineligible for a CAA (spouses with sponsors of rank E6 or 

higher, O4 or higher, or another type of rank). The average length of time that sponsors had 

remaining on base at the time of the CAA application was 2.5 years. The Marines were more likely 

than other branches of service to have sponsors of CAA recipients who were of junior enlisted 

ranks. The Air Force was more likely than other branches of service to have high-ranking officers as 

sponsors. 

Overall, 97 percent of CAA participants were female (Table ES.1). Their average age was 29 

years. Depending on how we handle spouses with missing information, we estimate that either 57 

or 69 percent of spouses had young children under age 13; among those who had young children, 

the average number of young children was 2. Thirty-nine percent of spouses had a high school 

diploma or GED as their highest education level attained, while 33 percent had some college but no 

diploma or degree. 

At the time of the spouses’ applications for a CAA, around half to two-thirds were not working, 

and about one-quarter had never worked. Depending on how spouses with missing data compare to 

spouses with nonmissing data, the percentage who were formerly employed but not working when 

they applied for a CAA was either 28 or 36 percent of the sample, and those who had never worked 

was either 22 or 28 percent. The rest, those employed when they applied for a CAA, was either 29 

or 37 percent. 

xvii 
 

 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II 

Table ES.1 Characteristics of Military Spouse CAA Recipients 

Mathematica Policy Research 

Characteristic Statistic 

Percent Female 

Highest Education Level When Applied 

High School Diploma, GED, or Equivalent 

Some college but not diploma/degree 

Vocational/technical/business diploma or Associate’s 

degree/diploma 

Bachelor’s degree or other 

Percent with Children Under Age 13 

Yes 

No 

Missing 

Average number of children under age 13, if any 

Employment Status at Intake 

Employed 

Not currently employed but had previous employment 

Never employed 

Missing 

97.3 

39.0 

32.8 

15.8 

12.4 

57.3 

26.1 

16.6 

1.9 

28.9 

28.1 

21.9 

21.0 

Sample Size 2,630 

Source: Individual-level data on clients provided by Military Sp 

grantees. 

Notes: Each site that issued CAAs to military spouses after mid-July 20 

database between February 10 and March 6, 2009, for this analys 

of the eight CAA grantees, are not included in this analysis beca 

CAAs after mid-July 2008. 

ouse CAA Demonstration 

08 provided an extract of its 

is. Spouses from Maine, one 

use Maine did not issue new 

The most common types of jobs for spouses who were currently or formerly employed when 

they applied for a CAA were office and administrative support jobs and sales-related jobs. 

However, spouses had been employed in a wide range of jobs. On average, spouses for whom data 

were nonmissing earned $10.74 per hour and worked 33 hours per week in their current or most 

recent job. Spouses who had worked, but who were no longer working, reported a wide range of 

reasons for no longer being at their former jobs. Having quit due to a Permanent Change of Station 

(PCS) or for other reasons was common. 

Spouses’ CAA Eligibility and Plans 

Based on an analysis of individual-level data, many spouses moved quickly through the steps in 

the CAA application process. Among spouses with nonmissing information, the average number of 

days between the intake date and the final eligibility determination was about seven. Spouses with 

Marine sponsors achieved eligibility especially quickly compared to spouses with sponsors from 

another branch of service, while the rank of the sponsor of a spouse does not seem to have had a 

strong influence on the speed at which the CAA application was processed. 

xviii 
 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

Spouses typically planned to use their CAA for an Associate of Arts (AA), Associate of Science 

(AS), or occupational skills certificate or credential. As was found in the implementation study and 

the analysis of aggregate data, planned careers in the health care and education fields were common. 

Among spouses who planned to participate in an education or training program, about two-fifths 

(42 percent) planned to use their CAAs to attend a community college (Figure ES.3). About onequarter were expecting to receive their instruction through distance (Internet) learning, and about 55 

percent planned to have their program last more than one year. Spouses with Air Force sponsors 

were more likely than other spouses to plan to attend a four-year university, to attend the program in 

person, and to attend longer. Marine spouses were more likely to plan to participate in a program 

offered from a propriety school and as distance learning, whereas Army and Navy spouses were 

more likely to plan to attend a community college. Spouses of officers were more likely to plan to 

attend a four-year university, but the rank of the sponsor does not seem to have a strong 

relationship to the delivery method or length of the planned program. 

xix 

 


 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

I. INTRODUCTION
 

In 2007, the Employment and Training Administration of the U.S. Department of Labor 

(DOL) and the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) began a joint initiative to support the spouses 

of military personnel (“military spouses”) in their pursuit of portable postsecondary degrees or 

industry-recognized credentials. Although military spouses tend to have more education than their 

civilian counterparts, they are generally employed at lower rates, in part as a result of the 

deployments and frequent moves common to families with a member in the military (Harrell et al. 

2004; Lim, Golinelli, and Cho 2007; Savych 2008). 

Through the Military Spouse (MilSpouse) Career Advancement Accounts (CAA) 

Demonstration, eligible military spouses can obtain an account to pay for education and technical 

training that will aid them in their careers. The theory underlying the demonstration is that a 

portable degree or credential funded with a CAA will help military spouses enter and advance in the 

workforce even as they relocate when their service member spouses transfer to other bases. A 

longer-term goal of the demonstration is to encourage the retention of the service member by 

improving his or her spouse’s job prospects and increasing the satisfaction of the entire family with 

life in the military. 

DOL contracted with Mathematica Policy Research and several other organizations to conduct 

an evaluation of the demonstration. Mathematica led the evaluation; Coffey Consulting, LLC, 

(Coffey) supported the evaluation activities. With Mathematica’s guidance, Coffey designed a data 

collection tool, provided technical assistance to demonstration sites on using the tool, and 

conducted several site visits to assess demonstration implementation. DTI Associates, Inc., (DTI) 

and its partner, SRI International (SRI), conducted telephone interviews with site staff in spring 

2009 to supplement information that Mathematica and Coffey staff collected during summer 2008 

about sites’ experiences implementing the demonstration. 

This introductory chapter provides an overview of the demonstration (Section A) and presents 

an overview of the evaluation and the research questions guiding it (Section B). Section C contains a 

brief explanation of the content of the remaining chapters of the report. 

A. The Military Spouse CAA Demonstration 

DOL and DoD designed the MilSpouse CAA Demonstration as a partnership between selected 

military bases and nearby One-Stop Career Centers that provide employment and training services 

as part of the nation’s public workforce system. DoD identified military bases to participate and 

then DOL identified nearby One-Stop Career Centers that would serve as partners to recruit 

spouses and manage their CAAs. The demonstration officially began in fall 2007 when DOL 

awarded MilSpouse CAA Demonstration grants to eight states. In seven of them, the state’s 

workforce agency received the award and, in turn, provided funding to the selected One-Stop Career 

Center(s) to fund and manage accounts. In one state, Georgia, the award went to the governor’s 

office of workforce development. This office maintained responsibility for funding accounts, but 

provided grant funding to the One-Stop Career Center to work with demonstration participants. 

In all states, the participating military bases did not receive funding to support their demonstration 

role but instead were asked to leverage resources to support demonstration activities. The 

1 
 

 

 

 

	 

	 

	 


 


 


 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

participating One-Stop Career Centers worked with military spouses attached to one or several 

branches of the military, depending on the partnership. All participating One-Stop Career Centers 

and military bases implemented CAA guidelines aligned with the seven guiding principles discussed 

below, and all followed a common workflow. The demonstration ends in June 2010. 

1. Eight States Participating in the Demonstration 

In fall 2007, eight states received a grant to implement the MilSpouse CAA Demonstration: 

California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Maine, North Carolina, and Washington (Table I.1). 

CAAs have been offered only in selected areas in these states, where the participating military bases 

and the One-Stop Career Centers attached to them are located. In four states—California, Florida, 

Table I.1 Military Spouse CAA Demonstration States and Sites 

State One-Stop Career Center/City Lead Base(s)/Education Center 

California North County Coastal Center, 

Oceanside 

California San Diego South Metro Career 

Center, San Diego 

Colorado Pikes Peak Workforce Center, 

Colorado Springs 

Florida Military Family Employment Liaison 

Jobs Plus, Fort Walton Beach 

Florida Military Family Employment 

Advocate WorkSource One-Stop 

Center, Jacksonville 

Georgia Columbus Career Center, 

Columbus 

Hawaiia

 Oahu Works Links-Dillingham 

Office, Honolulu 

Oahu Works Links-Waipahu Office, 

Waipahu 

Maine	 BRAC Transition Center, Brunswick 

North Carolina Cumberland County Workforce 

Development Center (JobLink), 

Fayetteville 

Washington	 WorkSource Center Serving Kitsap 

County, Bremerton 

Washington	 WorkSource Center Serving Pierce 

County, Tacoma 

Camp Pendleton/Joint Education Center 

Naval Base San Diego/Navy College Office 

Fort Carson/Mountain Post Training and 

Education Center 

Peterson AFB/Base Education Office 

Eglin AFB/Education Office 

Hurlburt AFB/Education Office 

Jacksonville NAS/Navy College Office 

Fort Benning/Army Continuing Education 

System Division 

Hickam AFB/Force Development Flight 

Kaneohe Bay/Joint Education Center 

Pearl Harbor/Navy College Office 

Schofield Barracks/Army Education Center 

Brunswick/Navy College Office 

Fort Bragg/Education Services Division 

Pope AFB/Education Office 

Bremerton/Navy College Office 

Fort Lewis/Stone Education Center 

McChord AFB/Education and Training Office 

a

The study is treating Hawaii as one site even though two One-Stop Career Centers provide services.
 

AFB= Air Force Base. 

BRAC = Base Realignment and Closure.
 

NAS= Naval Air Station.
 

2 
 

 

 

 

 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

Hawaii, and Washington—two One-Stop Career Centers are participating in the demonstration; in 

each of the other four states, a single One-Stop Career Center is participating. One or two lead 

military bases are collaborating with each One-Stop Career Center. For purposes of the study, in all 

states except Hawaii, a “site” consists of a One-Stop Career Center and the military bases that 

collaborate with it for the demonstration. Although two One-Stop Career Centers have been 

participating in Hawaii, the study counts them as a single site because of the centers’ proximity to 

each other on the island of Oahu. In total, the study has been examining the experiences at 11 sites. 

Across these 11 sites, the One-Stop Career Centers partnered with 18 lead military bases (six 

Air Force, five Army, two Marine Corps, and five Navy installations).1

 Most installations involved, 

in some way, both their education center (which primarily helps service members further their 

education) and their family support center (which provides general and employment-related support 

services to service members and their families). These centers are referred to by different names, 

depending upon the branch of the service.2 

The states involved in the MilSpouse CAA Demonstration received grants ranging in size from 

$10,115,998 (California) to $750,000 (Maine) (Table I.2). Each state projected the total number of 

CAAs that it planned to award throughout the grant period. The state with the largest grant, 

California, planned to award the most (2,466), while the state with the smallest grant, Maine, planned 

to award 250. 

Table I.2 Military Spouse CAA Grant Funding and Target Number of Account Awards 

Total Grant Target Number of CAAs 

State Amount to Be Awarded 

California $10,115,998 2,466a 

Colorado $2,193,870 643 

Florida $4,405,196 1,031a 

Georgia $4,593,276 719 

Hawaii $2,450,000 638 

Maine $750,000 250 

North Carolina $6,953,639 800b 

Washington $3,738,061 897a 

Total $35,200,040 7,444b 

Source: State MilSpouse demonstration implementation plans, fall 2008. 

a

The target number of CAAs is an aggregation of the two sites in each of these states. 

b

In August 2008, North Carolina decreased its target number of CAAs from 1,000 to 800. The total 

number of CAAs to be awarded across all states reflects the lower number for North Carolina. 

1 In some sites, nearby bases have had links to the lead base; families stationed at those installations also have been 

eligible to participate in the demonstration. In total, spouses from 36 bases have been eligible to receive a CAA. 

2 Each installation has an education center with professional staff who provide counseling and testing to service 

members and their family members to help them further their education. Each service branch uses a distinct name for its 

education center: Army Continuing Education System/Army Education Centers; Air Force Voluntary Education/Air 

Force Education Centers; Navy College Office; and Lifelong Learning/Lifelong Learning Office/Education Centers 

(Marines). Bases in each service branch also operate family support centers that offer transition support services, general 

employment services, resume and employment workshops, career interest inventories, and counseling and therapy for 

individuals and families. As with the education centers, the service branches use varying names for these family support 

centers: Army Community Services; Airman and Family Readiness Center (Air Force); Fleet and Family Support Center 

(Navy); and Marine and Family Services. 

3 
 

 

 

 

	 

	 

	 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

2. Seven Principles Guiding MilSpouse CAA Implementation 

States were encouraged to be innovative in their delivery of CAA services, but they were 

required to follow seven principles when implementing CAAs: 

1.	 Collaboration Between Workforce and Military Partners. The demonstration is 

intended to be a partnership between the local public workforce entities—the local 

Workforce Investment Board (WIB) and One-Stop Career Center—and the military 

bases. The One-Stop Career Centers and the military bases are jointly responsible for 

conducting outreach to potential participants; using DoD and DOL criteria to screen 

for eligibility; and collaborating to provide coordinated workforce and economic 

information, career and education guidance, skills assessment, and other related 

resources and services. 

2.	 Eligibility Focused on Military Spouses in Need of Credentials. Eligibility 

throughout the demonstration has been restricted to spouses with at least a high school 

diploma or General Educational Development (GED) credential at the time they apply. 

Generally, spouses who had at least a college degree were not eligible to use a CAA for 

additional education, except for the attainment of a credential, license, or certification. 

Initially, DoD and DOL also restricted eligibility to military spouses married to a service 

member/sponsor at the E1-E4 level (junior enlisted service members), E5 level 

(noncommissioned officer), or O1-O3 level (junior commissioned officers).3

 In April 

2008 this restriction was lifted and military spouses of service members of all ranks 

became eligible.4 

3.	 Selected Training and Education Programs Must Meet Demonstration Criteria. 

DOL and DoD required participants to pursue education and training programs, and 

ultimately careers, in nationally recognized high-growth and high-demand fields. 

Originally, five fields were identified: financial services, information technology, health 

care, education, and construction. In April 2008, DOL and DoD authorized the 

issuance of CAAs for specific occupations in four additional sectors: human resources, 

hospitality, homeland security, and business administration. DOL and DoD further 

expanded the list of eligible occupations in December 2008 to include new occupations 

under business administration and some occupations within a category of social work; 

these changes applied to California, Florida, Georgia, Maine, and North Carolina only. 

3 The term “sponsors” pertains to the military service members through whom spouses became eligible for CAAs. 

Generally, enlisted services members have at least a high school diploma, or an equivalent credential, while officers have 

a bachelor’s or graduate degree. For most military personnel, the monthly salary depends on the military personnel’s 

years of service and rank. For example, as of April 2007, military basic monthly pay for active duty personnel was 

$1,301 for an E-1 with less than 2 years of tenure; it was $2,582 for an E-5 with over 20 years of tenure. Military basic 

monthly pay was $ 2,469 for an O-1 with less than 2 years of tenure and $5,356 for an O-3 with over 20 years of tenure 

(Bureau of Labor Statistics 2007). In addition to a monthly salary, all service members receive benefits such as housing 

and subsistence allowance, medical and dental care, and annual vacations. 

4With a few exceptions, eligibility for a CAA also was restricted throughout much of the demonstration to spouses 

whose sponsors had a minimum of one year of duty assignment left at the demonstration base. The initial rationale for 

this restriction was to ensure that spouses would have enough time to complete their education and training programs 

and attain their credentials before they moved from the area. However, the grants are scheduled to end in June 2010 

and grantees cannot fund CAA activities past that point, so DOL eliminated this criterion in June 2009. 

4 
	 

	 

	 

	 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

Military spouses in any of the demonstration states can select any education or training 

program appropriate for an allowed field or occupation, as long as the program is 

nationally or regionally accredited by the U.S. Department of Education (or an 

accrediting body recognized by the Department of Education) or on the state’s 

Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Eligible Training Provider List. 

4.	 CAAs Are to Be Used Primarily for Education or Training. CAAs are used only (1) 

to fund tuition for education and training programs and related expenses, such as 

books, fees, and equipment; and (2) to pay for credentialing and licensing fees. CAAs 

cannot be used to fund supportive services, such as food, clothing, child care, or 

transportation. DOL and DoD encouraged One-Stop Career Centers and military 

bases to leverage other resources for supportive and other employment-related services. 

5.	 CAAs Have a Maximum Value of $6,000 over Two Years. At the start of the 

demonstration, the initial maximum amount of the CAA was $3,000 for one year, 

beginning from the date that a participant entered an approved education or training 

program. The CAA could then be renewed for a second year for up to an additional 

$3,000. The actual value of a CAA is to be determined by the specific 

employment/training plan. In December 2008, DOL and DoD revised this policy so 

that participants in five states (California, Florida, Georgia, Maine, and North Carolina) 

could spend the full $6,000 allotment at any time during the two-year period or by the 

end of the grant period in June 2010, whichever was first. 

6.	 CAA-Funded Training and Education Programs Should Lead to Degrees or 

Credentials. The education and training provided through a CAA must result in a 

postsecondary degree or industry-recognized portable credential in a high-demand field 

within two years. 

7.	 Military Spouses Should Manage Their Accounts. Within the limitations set by the 

preceding principles, CAA recipients should make their own decisions, with limited staff 

involvement, about how they use their accounts. By self-managing their accounts, 

military spouses have flexibility to determine personal career goals and identify 

employment and training opportunities that support their individual preferences. This 

differs from the service delivery model for individual training accounts (ITAs), the 

predominant method One-Stop Career Centers use to fund eligible customers’ 

education and training. Before receiving an ITA, customers participate in a sequence of 

WIA services, starting with core services, such as self-serve job information and 

workshops on resume writing, and then intensive services, such as comprehensive 

assessments and individual counseling. They then receive staff counseling to select 

ITA-supported training programs. 

3. A Common Workflow Has Guided Opening and Management of CAAs 

To implement the seven guiding principles of CAAs, sites used a common set of steps to open 

and manage accounts (Figure I.1). The first four—hold orientation sessions, assess for military 

eligibility, identify education needs, and complete the CAA approval process—comprise opening an 

account. The remaining three steps—perform ongoing followup, renew account, and complete 

education—occur throughout the period of account management. Additional information about 

these steps is given in Part I. 

5 
Figure I.1. MilSpouse Career Advancement Accounts Flow Diagram 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

Orientation Sessions 

Introduce spouses to CAAs; explain eligibility 

requirements and expectations 

Assess for Military Eligibility 

Provide documentation to determine military eligibility 

Receive approved process form with military 

signatures 

Complete CAA Approval Process to Open Account 

Receive final approval for CAA from workforce partner 

Enroll in selected degree or certification program 

Begin attending program 

Ongoing Followup with CAA Staff 

Complete expected followup with CAA staff 

Provide requested documentation regarding program 

status 

Renew CAA 

When appropriate, complete steps to renew CAA for 

year 2 

Complete Education and Obtain Employment 

Complete certifications needed for selected career field 

Obtain employment in selected career field 

Identify Education Needs in 

Selected Career Field
 

Identify career interest area 

Research programs offering a degree 

or certification in field 

Account Management Process 

by CAA Staff 

Approve CAA for spouses 

Establish payment system for 

education institutions 

Process invoices from education 

institutions 

Review spouses’ standing at 

education institutions 

Process invoices for additional 

courses/semester 

Renew accounts for second year 

Review spouses’ standing at 

education institutions 

Close account when spouses leave 

program or complete program 

6 
	 

	 

	 

	 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

B. Overview of the Study 

The evaluation’s objectives, defined by DOL in collaboration with DoD, are (1) to inform 

DOL and DoD about early experiences, challenges, and promising practices for successful 

implementation; and (2) to provide information about participant characteristics, service use, and 

outcomes, as reported by grantees through a demonstration-wide data collection tool designed by 

the evaluation team. This section presents research questions that were developed early in the study 

and the design that was developed to provide insights to these questions; it also discusses the way in 

which this report contributes to the study objectives. 

1. Research Questions and Study Design 

During the early part of the study, four sets of research questions were developed to indicate 

the type of information that would be desirable to obtain from a comprehensive, long-term 

examination of the MilSpouse CAA Demonstration. It was recognized, however, that the study 

would not be able to answer these questions comprehensively because of the study’s time frame and 

the resources available for the research. The four sets of questions of potential interest to 

policymakers who want to help military spouses to develop portable careers in high-demand fields 

are: 

1.	 To what extent are sites implementing the MilSpouse CAA Demonstration according to 

the seven principles guiding military spouse CAAs. What successes and challenges are 

sites experiencing? 

2.	 What are the characteristics of military spouses participating in the demonstration? 

How are participants using their accounts? 

3.	 What are the education- and employment-related outcomes of CAA participants? What 

proportion of participants is enrolling in education and training programs, completing 

the programs, obtaining credentials, and finding employment related to their 

credentials? 

4.	 What factors are associated with participants’ successful outcomes? How does 

participation affect their satisfaction with their spouse’s military career? How are the 

sites and participants working to overcome any barriers to successful participation? 

As explained above, fully answering these four sets of questions would require data and 

resources that are beyond the scope of the current study. Most importantly, obtaining 

comprehensive answers to the questions would require waiting not only until the demonstration is 

over and the military spouses with CAAs have been able to complete their education and training 

programs, but also until spouses have had an adequate amount of time during a post-training followup period to achieve meaningful post-CAA outcomes. These data could be obtained in the future 

through interviews with spouses or by gathering administration records on spouses’ outcomes from 

state agencies. 

In conjunction with DOL and DoD, the evaluation team developed a more limited twopronged approach—an implementation study and a quantitative study—to address the first two sets 

of questions as much as possible, given the constraints. The implementation study has drawn on 

qualitative information gathered about ways the demonstration has provided services and developed 

strategies to overcome implementation challenges. The primary information sources for the 

7 
 

 

 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

implementation study are in-depth site visits conducted shortly after the start of the demonstration. 

At most sites, interviews were conducted with staff from the state labor or workforce department, 

the participating WIB and One-Stop Career Center, and the military partner, which usually consisted 

of the education and family support centers that provide support to service members and their 

families. When possible, evaluation team members also observed military spouses’ interactions with 

demonstration staff, such as orientation sessions in which military spouses learned about the 

program requirements. Finally, they conducted group discussions with participants who had opened 

CAAs. A report developed as part of the evaluation provides an overview of the demonstration and 

study, and key findings about the demonstration’s partnerships, early implementation experiences, 

marketing efforts, and other topics (see Part I). Additional information about the implementation 

experiences of sites was gathered through telephone interviews conducted with demonstration 

representatives in June 2009, after the implementation report was written. The telephone interviews 

discussed a few topics that, because of timing, were not covered in detail during the site visits; they 

focused on how sites managed accounts over time and how they assisted participants after 

completion of training programs. The themes that emerged from these interviews are included in 

this report. 

Although the implementation study report provides rich qualitative information and lessons 

about the experiences of site staff and participants, both DoD and DOL desired to supplement this 

information with the second prong of the study—a quantitative analysis about CAA participants. 

Results from the quantitative analysis are presented for the first time in this report. Using data 

reported by the states to DOL, this analysis provides information about the patterns over time in 

states’ awards of CAAs to military spouses, for all states combined, by state, and by industry. The 

report also uses individual-level data for an analysis of the characteristics of the spouses and their 

sponsors (that is, the military personnel to whom they are married), as well as spouses’ education 

and training plans for using the CAAs. 

Like the implementation study, however, this portion of the evaluation has some limitations. 

For example, both types of quantitative data were collected in the first half of 2009, although the 

grants are not scheduled to end until June 2010. Therefore, because the data were collected while 

the demonstration was still enrolling spouses, the analyses do not contain information about all 

participants.5

 Information about spouses who began their CAA participation early in the program 

also is not included in the individual-level analysis. And, because most spouses had not completed 

their training or attained employment by the time of data collection, the individual-level analysis 

does not contain information about spouses’ outcomes or long-term satisfaction with their families’ 

involvement in the military. Rather, it presents descriptive statistics on the characteristics of a 

sample of participants at the time they began their involvement in the demonstration. 

Ultimately, the study was not designed to answer the third and fourth sets of research questions, 

since doing so would require information that can only be observed after sites complete their CAA 

activities and spouses complete their education and training programs. Nevertheless, the findings 

from this study will be useful to policymakers who desire to obtain timely information about the 

early experiences of demonstration sites and the characteristics of spouses who received CAAs. 

5 Chapter III provides further information about the weekly report data and analysis, while Chapters IV and V do 

so for the individual-level analysis. 

8 
 

	 

	 

	 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

2. Contributions to the Study Objectives 

This report supplements the implementation study report. To help meet the first study 

objective, it provides additional information on implementation issues. To support the second 

objective, it offers quantitative information about the characteristics of participants and their plans 

to use the CAAs for participation in education and training programs, as well as their attainment of 

credentials, licenses, or certifications to support careers in high-wage, high-growth occupations. 

This report summarizes findings from the implementation study report, but is based primarily on 

additional and updated information to provide further insights about the experiences of sites and 

military spouse participants in the demonstration. The analysis draws upon one qualitative and two 

quantitative data sources. 

•	 Telephone interviews. Staff at DTI and SRI conducted telephone interviews in spring 

2009 to supplement the information about sites’ implementation of the demonstration. 

These interviews were conducted with demonstration staff representing the workforce 

partner—generally the state labor or workforce department and the participating local 

One-Stop Career Center—and the military partner, which was usually the education or 

family support center that provides support to service members and their families. The 

discussions focused on their processes and systems for managing CAAs, including 

tracking and de-obligating funds and closing accounts, and providing participants with 

support after completing training programs. At the time of the implementation study 

data collection activities conducted during spring and summer 2008, sites had not had 

much experience with these facets of the demonstration; the spring 2009 interviews 

were able to expand the information about sites’ implementation experiences. 

•	 Weekly report data. Participating states reported weekly data on the number of CAAs 

awarded. This information provides an overview of the patterns of CAA awards over 

time, thus supplementing the implementation findings about sites’ initial start-ups. 

•	 Individual-level data. Sites collected individual-level data describing the 

characteristics of spouses who began their involvement in the demonstration on or 

after July 14, 2008, as well as their training plans for using the CAAs. Although 

DOL requested that sites gather information about spouses’ training and 

employment outcomes, that information is not included in this report because many 

spouses were still involved in their CAA activities at the time that sites provided 

data for analysis. 

C. Organization of the Report 

The rest of the report is divided into four chapters. Chapter II presents a summary of the 

findings from the implementation study and supplements them with new information about how 

sites have managed accounts over time and how they have assisted participants after they completed 

their training programs. Patterns over time in grantees’ awards of CAAs to spouses are presented in 

Chapter III. Chapter IV presents information on the characteristics of spouses and their military 

sponsors. Finally, Chapter V presents information about the basic steps that spouses went through 

as they learned about and were determined eligible for a CAA, as well as information about spouses’ 

plans for training and credential attainment and their receipt of non-CAA services. 

9 

 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

II. MILSPOUSE CAA DEMONSTRATION IMPLEMENTATION 

The MilSpouse CAA Demonstration provided military spouses with a new funding opportunity 

for pursuing training and attaining certificates that may support their pursuit of employment and 

careers. As part of the demonstration, sites needed to build partnerships between the selected 

military bases and associated local workforce agencies to support demonstration implementation. In 

addition, sites needed to quickly develop processes and procedures for serving spouses. To 

document demonstration implementation, the evaluation included site visits to all demonstration 

sites, which occurred between six and eight months after the start of the demonstration. 

Information gathered during the site visits was updated in June 2009 through telephone interviews 

that staff at SRI International and DTI Associates, Inc., under a separate contract with DOL, 

conducted with key representatives from each demonstration site. This chapter presents key 

findings on the implementation of the MilSpouse CAA Demonstration, with early findings discussed 

in Section A and additional findings discussed in Section B. 

A. Findings from Implementation Study Report 

The implementation report for the evaluation (see Part I) presented detailed information about 

the early implementation experiences of the MilSpouse CAA Demonstration. It described the 

demonstration guidelines provided to grantees, the partnerships and collaborations that were 

established, the early start-up experiences of the demonstration sites, sites’ marketing and outreach 

efforts, and the administration and management of accounts. It also presented information about 

participants’ experiences and overarching lessons related to the implementation of the CAA 

program for military spouses. 

The primary sources of information for the implementation study were in-depth site visits. At 

most sites, interviews were conducted with staff from the state labor or workforce department, the 

participating Workforce Investment Board (WIB) and the local One-Stop Career Center, and the 

military partner, which usually consisted of the education and family support centers that provide 

support to service members and their families. When possible, evaluation team members also 

observed military spouses’ interactions with demonstration staff, such as orientation sessions when 

military spouses learned about the requirements. Finally, they conducted group discussions with 

participants who had opened CAAs. 

A summary of the findings provided in the implementation study report is presented to provide 

context for the information in this report. Key findings on implementation patterns through the 

first six to eight months of the demonstration are: 

Building partnerships between military and workforce entities was a cornerstone of this 

demonstration from both a design and an operational perspective. At the federal level, DOL and 

DoD partnered to design and carry out the demonstration. At the local level, DOL and DoD 

emphasized military and workforce partnerships to capitalize on the specific skills, knowledge, 

concrete systems, and perspectives that each partner brought to the initiative, gained through their 

experience of providing education and workforce services. While some of their areas of expertise 

overlap, each partner offered a range of relevant, and sometimes unique, experience and skills. The 

military partners—that is, the entities of the military base involved in the demonstration—had 

experience serving military spouses. The workforce system partners—that is, the entities of the 

workforce system involved in the demonstration—had experience providing employment and 

11 
 

 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

training services. Both partners typically had prior knowledge of, and experience working with, 

eligible educational institutions. 

Some sites that initially struggled with a lack of resources and staff, particularly by the military 

partners, had both slower startups and lower rates of funding obligations as time progressed. After 

on-site training from DOL and DoD in October 2007, sites were to have begun demonstration 

implementation quickly, with a goal of some participants attending education or training programs 

by January 2008. Two sites had a particularly quick start-up phase: they obligated nearly 6 percent of 

their total grant award as of February 4, 2008, and they continued at this rapid pace, with nearly 20 

percent of funds obligated only one month later (DOL/DoD 2008). Administrators at these sites 

attributed their quick startups to preexisting relationships between military and workforce partners 

and an early and active interest in the demonstration. Among the other sites that initially proceeded 

at a more moderate or slower pace, there were reports that the military did not have enough 

resources and staff to begin work on the demonstration immediately. While workforce partners had 

access to some demonstration funds for staffing, military partners had to leverage existing resources 

and often divide their time between their regular work and demonstration work. 

While military partners often led the effort to inform their military community about the 

program, orientations usually involved staff from both the military base and the One-Stop Career 

Center. Military partners typically led marketing efforts by disseminating information about who 

was eligible, what occupations would be funded, and what the timing of available funds would be. 

Information was shared through written materials on bases, advertisements in base newspapers and 

on base television stations, and briefings for families who were new to the base as well as those who 

had been at the base longer. Sites held orientations, either in individual or group settings, to provide 

potential participants with information about the demonstration. Staff from both the military base 

and One-Stop Career Center participated in group orientations. In 7 of the 11 sites, orientations 

served as the first step in receiving CAA approval, though it was rare that all steps to fully open an 

account could be completed during the orientation. 

Responsibilities for approving an account application were typically shared between the 

workforce and military partners, while the workforce partners assumed much, if not all, of the 

responsibility of managing the account once it was open. A military spouse who wanted to apply for 

a CAA would complete a standardized form (the “process form”) that asked about the spouse’s 

background and plans for the CAA. A member of the military staff, typically the commander’s 

designee, certified the potential participant’s military eligibility for the demonstration. After that, 

One-Stop Career Center demonstration staff received the military-approved process form and 

completed the eligibility process, typically verifying that the spouse’s plans for use of the CAA met 

the demonstration’s requirements. They also documented whether an account was awarded and, if 

so, the award amount. As part of the review process, One-Stop Career Centers in at least seven sites 

required that potential participants submit an education plan to supplement information on the 

process form. In accordance with the demonstration’s goal to have accounts self-managed, potential 

participants could—but were not required to—receive career or education counseling. All 

demonstration sites suggested that some portion of their potential participants needed and received 

this guidance, although estimates of the proportion of spouses who needed this help ranged widely 

across sites. 

Site staff needed to develop processes to manage CAAs, though processes evolved over time. 

Site staff needed to track participants with open accounts to ensure that they remained in good 

standing with their training program. They also needed processes to renew accounts for a second 

12 
 

 

 

 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

year, close accounts after participants dropped out of or completed training, and de-obligate funding 

when participants used less money than was originally obligated. At the time of the site visit data 

collection for the implementation study, sites had little, if any, experience with renewing or closing 

CAAs, as participants were still in their first year of training. In summer 2008, when the 

implementation study site visits were conducted, all demonstration sites anticipated that they would 

need to begin renewing CAAs in early 2009 to allow participants to access their next $3,000. At that 

time, sites indicated they were likely to institute few additional steps for renewal, but participants 

needed to be in good academic standing before second-year CAA funds would be provided.15 

Some sites experienced challenges in their efforts to monitor funding obligations and payments 

made. A critical aspect of account management was tracking both the funds that had been 

disbursed and the funds that remained available to serve additional spouses. Sites had to maintain 

an accurate tracking of both their obligated funding, and their actual payments to training 

institutions. The main reasons for these two levels of tracking were to ensure that prior obligations 

could be met and to monitor how many more CAAs could be awarded. Several sites tracked CAA 

funds with two systems: (1) they developed their own tracking mechanism (typically an Excel 

spreadsheet), and (2) they used their existing fiscal management tools. The dual-system sites were 

limited in how well they could track funds paid out for a participant, or for the demonstration as a 

whole. This created a challenge when calculating remaining funds for new participants. For 

example, One-Stop Career Center staff in one site reported that their county financial system 

allowed them to enter obligations only one quarter ahead. Here, staff had to maintain separate 

tracking to ensure that all obligated funding was accounted for. 

Participants valued the education and career opportunities available through the CAA and 

thought that their improved career prospects would be beneficial for their families. We learned 

about spouses’ perspectives through group discussions in each of the 11 sites. Although discussion 

participants were not randomly selected to participate, they appeared to be typical of spouses served 

by the demonstration. Spouses expressed their interest in improving their career options as they 

moved from base to base, and they were generally supportive of the demonstration’s focus on 

portable careers, though some suggested that more flexibility should be given to participants’ career 

interests. They also were glad to do something for themselves, to receive the financial assistance to 

further their education, and to relieve their service member spouses (sponsors) of the burden of 

being the sole financial support of the family. Finally, some spouses reported that participating 

provided a positive distraction from stresses while their service member spouses were deployed. 

While participants could not predict how the CAA would affect their futures, most believed that 

their participation would have positive effects on their families, setting a good example for their 

children and improving their relationships with their spouses. 

Participants had mixed views about how the CAA and their new career opportunities would 

affect their families’ continued involvement with the military. Some participants thought that the 

CAA would help them prepare for civilian life when their military personnel spouse retired. Others 

thought that their increased satisfaction from obtaining a credential and establishing a career would 

15 In December 2008, DOL and DoD revised grant policy so that participants in five states (California, Florida, 

Georgia, Maine, and North Carolina) could spend the full $6,000 allotment at any time during the two-year period or by 

the end of the grant period in June 2010, whichever was first. This change decreased the relevance of account renewal 

for these five states. 

13 
 

 

 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

enable their military personnel spouse to remain in the military. However, since almost all of the 

spouses who participated in the discussions were still in training, they did not have firsthand 

experience making decisions about their families’ involvement in the military after receipt of the 

CAAs. 

B. Updating Implementation Study Report Findings 

To supplement the site visits conducted as part of the evaluation’s implementation study, staff 

at SRI International and DTI Associates, Inc. conducted telephone interviews with all MilSpouse 

CAA Demonstration sites during June 2009. These interviews, held with demonstration staff 

representing the state labor or workforce department, the participating local One-Stop Career 

Center, and the military partners, were intended to update information gathered during site visits, as 

the early timing of the visits meant that sites had not experienced all operational aspects of the 

demonstration. During telephone interviews, site representatives discussed their processes and 

systems for managing CAAs, including tracking and de-obligating funds and closing accounts, and 

providing participants with support after completing training programs. Representatives also 

discussed their efforts to sustain the partnerships established between military and workforce entities 

as part of the demonstration. Key findings from these interviews are: 

Tracking funds continued to be a complicated process for sites. As the demonstration 

progressed, sites developed processes for tracking and reconciling differences between obligated and 

expended grant funds. Sites often relied on more than one database. The system for obligated 

funding often reported funds at the participant level and aligned with a participant’s initial education 

plan, until adjustments were made after payment to education institutions. In comparison, 

preexisting accounting systems often tracked expended funds. In about half the sites, more than one 

staff member at the One-Stop Career Center shared responsibility for tracking and reconciling grant 

funds. Interview respondents reported that assigning fund management to one staff member (a 

strategy used by four sites) simplified the reconciliation process. 

De-obligating funds became a priority for sites after they obligated all of their initial accounts. 

Through reconciliation of grant funds, sites were able to identify unused money in CAAs and deobligate resources.16 Two common reasons for unused money were that the participant did not 

complete the training program or the training program cost less than originally anticipated. Deobligating funds became an important account management step for sites that had obligated all of 

their grant funds, as it allowed sites to award additional CAAs to interested spouses. Four sites, all 

of which had waiting lists of interested spouses, described de-obligating funding as a top grant 

priority in the demonstration’s second year. At least four other sites were still awarding initial CAAs 

and, consequently, did not identify de-obligating funds as a top priority. 

Sites tracked participants during and after training programs with varying degrees of intensity. 

All sites tracked participants while they attended their training programs, and about half the sites 

continued to track participants and offer support after training program completion. To track 

training program progress, sites asked participants to provide, at a minimum, grades at the end of 

16 De-obligating CAA funds is the process of decreasing the amount of funding allocated to a participating spouse, 

so that unused funding will be available for other participants. 

14 
MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

each semester or term. About half the sites asked participants to report on their progress more 

frequently through providing midterm grades or reporting on attendance. Sites that provided 

support to participants who completed training programs typically offered the support through the 

One-Stop Career Center. Available services were similar to WIA supports, but several sites 

described their support as limited or less intensive due to lack of staff availability. Most sites did not 

specify how long they planned to offer employment support to participants; the two sites that 

provided a time frame stated 6 and 18 months after the spouses completed training. The site saying 

it would follow participants for 18 months after training completion asked participants to follow 

WIA procedures that included required followup at 60, 90, and 180 days, and then at 12 and 18 

months. 

Sites defined different milestones for closing accounts after training programs. Demonstration 

sites varied in when they closed CAAs, particularly for participants who completed their training 

programs. Sites used one of three approaches: (1) close accounts upon program completion and/or 

receipt of credential, (2) close accounts after participants gain employment, or (3) close accounts 18 

months after training program completion to allow time to follow up with participants regarding 

employment. One site reported that it opted to keep accounts open until participants obtained 

employment to allow participants to access the One-Stop Career Center’s employment resources, 

including career counseling and resume assistance. Sites were consistent in closing accounts 

immediately after they identified a participant who stopped attending their training program. 

Many formal partnerships will dissolve without future opportunities to collaborate. For most 

sites, the demonstration strengthened existing relationships, or facilitated new ones, between military 

and workforce partners. Sites were open to continuing these partnerships but recognized that, 

without future opportunities, the formal partnerships may dissolve. One site had formal plans for 

sustaining the partnership through establishment of an affiliate One-Stop Career Center on the 

military base, but that site expressed concern about sustaining the current level of service available at 

the affiliate center after the demonstration ends. 

15 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 

	 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

III. PARTICIPANTS’ ENROLLMENT PATTERNS OVER TIME 

MilSpouse CAA demonstration sites faced competing pressures as they began and managed the 

provision of CAAs to military spouses. Some of these pressures are unique to this demonstration, 

while others are likely to be found in many types of demonstrations. Both DOL and DoD strongly 

encouraged sites to award at least some CAAs quickly after the demonstration began, so that some 

military spouses could begin using them for education or training programs starting in January 2008. 

More generally, sites might have wanted to award CAAs quickly so that participants, even those 

awarded CAAs after January 2008, could have enough time to attend their chosen education or 

training program for up to two years, before the end of the grants in June 2010. However, many new 

programs and demonstrations, such as this one, have difficulty getting program services up and 

running, spreading the word about the services and sparking interest among their target populations, 

building outreach and referral networks, and balancing the enrollment of new participants with 

services or followup to existing participants. Additional challenges implementing the program might 

arise if the sites must incorporate modifications to policy and program rules or must take into 

account a scheduled end of the program or demonstration. Furthermore, demonstration sites might 

want to spread out the process of providing CAAs to eligible spouses so that staff can effectively 

manage the workload of determining spouses’ eligibility and providing services to support them 

during and after their training and educational endeavors. 

Although the MilSpouse demonstration ends in June 2010, it is valuable to take stock of how 

sites progressed during the first year of the demonstration in awarding CAAs to eligible spouses. 

This chapter discusses the patterns in the award of MilSpouse CAAs to participants over time. 

Section A includes an explanation of the data that are used, the analysis methods, and the 

limitations. Sections B, C, and D then present the findings about the patterns of award provision 

over time: overall, by state, and by spouses’ target industry. 

Key Findings About Participants’ Enrollment Patterns Over Time 

•	 As of May 15, 2009, which is almost 17 months after MilSpouse demonstration states were 

to have begun providing CAAs, they had awarded 5,366 CAAs. This represents 72 percent 

of their targets for the full demonstration period. 

•	 By mid-May 2009, the proportion of the target number of CAAs that had been awarded 

ranged across states from 52 to 101 percent. During spring 2009, four (California, 

Colorado, Florida, and Washington) of the six states had suspended the provision of new 

CAA awards for at least one month so they could manage their obligations to participants, 

assessing the amount of funds that could be allocated to new CAA awards after the deobligation of funds from previously awarded CAAs. Two other states, Hawaii and Maine, 

had ceased awarding new CAAs during summer 2008. 

•	 Education, training, or credentialing in the health care field accounted for over 2,900 CAAs, 

more than half of all CAAs that had been awarded as of mid-May 2009. The education 

field, at 937 CAAs awarded by this time, accounted for at least one out of every six CAAs 

(17 percent). The next most common fields were finance (slightly less than 10 percent of 

all CAAs) and business administration, which averaged about 7 percent of all awards even 

though it was not allowed early in the demonstration. 

17 
 

 

 

 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

A. Aggregate Weekly Report Data, Analysis Methods, and Limitations 

Each MilSpouse grantee has been required to report to DOL on a weekly basis the cumulative 

number of CAAs awarded. The first of these reports was provided on February 4, 2008, a few 

months after sites began their CAA demonstration efforts. Reports have been provided each 

subsequent Monday, updating information to include awards from the previous week.17 The data 

include the total number of CAAs awarded by each grantee, as well as the number of awards given 

for each of the target industries in which spouses are allowed to pursue training or a credential.18 

The early reports provided information for each state and for the entire demonstration; later reports 

also included information for sites within each state. 

The analysis of the weekly report data is descriptive and includes data about CAA awards on or 

before Friday, May 15, 2009 (as reported in the Monday, May 18, 2009, weekly report). Because the 

early reports did not include substate information on the number of CAAs awarded, this analysis 

presents information for the demonstration as a whole and for each state, but not for sites within 

states. To present the information in a manageable way, the weekly data have been aggregated into 

months. For weeks that spanned across two months, the number of CAAs allocated to each month 

was based on the proportion of weekdays in each month. 

While analysis of the data is generally quite straightforward, information about the number of 

CAAs awarded in California before April 14, 2008, was imputed for the analysis. Around this time, 

DOL clarified how to complete the report, and the state modified its count of the number of CAAs 

awarded.19 The imputed data were based on the patterns in enrollments from other grantees, since 

the state’s weekly report data before April 14, 2008, were not revised.20 

As of mid-May 2009, when the weekly report data were received, there was still more than a 

year remaining in the grants, due to end in June 2010. Most grantees still planned to award new 

CAAs to spouses after this time. Thus, the analysis in this report provides a progression over time 

of CAA awards from February 2008, when the grantees began reporting the information to DOL, to 

mid-May 2009, but it does not include information about all awards provided as part of the 

demonstration. 

17 To reduce the burden on grantees in the final year of the grant, DOL decided in June 2009 to no longer require 

grantees to submit weekly reports of awards, although they still must submit award information in quarterly reports to 

DOL. 

18 The reports also include information about funding obligations for the CAAs. A preliminary examination of the 

data on funding obligations indicates that the data on funding follow generally similar patterns to those on the number 

of awards. Therefore, the analysis presented in this report is restricted to the data on the number of awards. 

19 Other states also made revisions to their data over time. However, these revisions were much smaller than was 

the case for California. Thus, for these cases, the potential error due to imputation seemed to be at least as large as the 

error in the grantees’ weekly report data, so no imputation was done. 

20 Individual-level data, which are described in detail in Chapter IV, were not systematically collected on or before 

April 2008 and, therefore, could not be used for the imputation process. 

18 
 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

B. Patterns Over Time in CAA Awards 

After on-site training from DOL and DoD in October 2007, sites were encouraged to 

implement the demonstration quickly so that some participants could attend education or training 

programs by January 2008. The weekly report data show that more than 300 CAA awards had been 

provided by the beginning of February 2008 (Figure III.1).21 Across all states, the number of awards 

provided each month increased from February to May 2008.22 The month with the largest number 

of awards was May 2008, with 543 CAAs, which is a spike compared to the number of awards in the 

other months in spring 2008. 

The weekly report data do not provide explanations for changes over time in the number of 

enrollments in a month. However, there are several possible factors for the patterns in awards 

during spring 2008. First, during this time, states had been developing their approaches to getting 

the word out to potential spouses and serving spouses. Second, May 2008, the month with the big 

spike in enrollments, also is the month that might have most coincided with the time when spouses 

began thinking about summer and fall education plans. A third factor might be that this was the 

first month after policy changes that allowed (1) spouses with service members/sponsors of any 

rank to participate in the demonstration, and (2) CAAs to be used for more occupations. Before 

April 2008, eligibility was restricted to military spouses married to a service member/sponsor who 

was at the E1-E4 levels (junior enlisted service members), E5 level (noncommissioned officer), or 

O1-O3 levels (junior commissioned officers). 

21 Table B.1 in Appendix B shows the precise numbers for the points shown in Figures III.1 and III.2. 

22 To be precise, the information in Figures III.1 and III.2 for “January 2008” pertain to February 1, 2008, or 

earlier and the information for “February 2008” pertains to the rest of the month. This is because the first set of reports 

from states to DOL was on February 4, 2008, and covered all CAA awards on or before February 1, 2008. 

19 
 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

Although no other month had as high an award rate as did May 2008, the number of awards per 

month were high in some other months as well. July and August 2008—also months in which 

spouses might have been planning to enroll in school in the fall—were the months with the next 

highest numbers of awards, at 494 and 502, respectively. Award rates generally slowed down after 

October 2008, from monthly rates over 400 during the summer to rates under 300. However, 

January 2009 showed another spike in the number of awards, with 327, possibly as spouses were 

planning for the spring 2009 school semester. 

As of May 15, 2009, the states had awarded 5,366 CAAs (Figure III.2). Overall, this represents 

72 percent of states’ target of 7,644 CAAs (not shown). However, these statistics, which combine 

across the state-specific numbers of CAAs that were targeted and actually awarded, mask the 

variation across states in awards. Therefore, the next section presents this information for each 

state. 

C. Patterns Over Time in CAA Awards by State 

The rates of awards and the paces at which states have approached their target number of 

enrollments have varied considerably across states (Table III.1).23 In anticipation of the departure of 

spouses from Maine starting in summer 2008 due to an impending Base Realignment and Closure 

(BRAC), Maine already had a mini One-Stop Career Center on base to help military families plan for 

23 The total number of CAAs that each state planned to award for the demonstration is reported in Table I.2 and, 

for convenience to the reader, is repeated in a note to Table III.1. 

20 
 

Table III.1 Cumulative Number of CAA Awards Over Time, by State 

21 

 Californiaa Colorado Florida 

Percentage 

Percentage of Percentage 

New Cumulative of Targeted New Cumulative Targeted New Cumulative of Targeted Ne

Awards Awards Awards Awards Awards Awards Awards Awards Awards Awa

January 2008 or Earlier 22 22 0.9 29 29 4.5 170 170 16.5 5 February 2008 10 32 1.3 1 30 4.7 22 192 18.6 6 

March 2008 17 49 2.0 27 57 8.9 43 235 22.8 10 April 2008 43 92 3.7 47 104 16.2 20 255 24.7 3 

May 2008 42 134 5.4 72 176 27.4 226 481 46.7 5 

June 2008 58 192 7.8 38 214 33.3 49 530 51.4 20 

July 2008 67 259 10.5 62 276 42.9 98 628 60.9 37 

August 2008 65 324 13.1 80 356 55.4 125 753 73.0 44 

September 2008 165 489 19.8 43 399 62.1 33 786 76.2 37 October 2008 140 629 25.5 53 452 70.3 54 840 81.5 23 

November 2008 151 780 31.6 39 491 76.4 22 862 83.6 16 

December 2008 48 828 33.6 21 512 79.6 30 892 86.5 26 

January 2009 168 996 40.4 0 512 79.6 46 938 91.0 46 

February 2009 124 1,120 45.4 0 512 79.6 16 954 92.5 30 

March 2009 177 1,297 52.6 0 512 79.6 0 954 92.5 30 

April 2009 79 1,376 55.8 0 512 79.6 0 954 92.5 21 

May 2009b 0 1,376 55.8 22 534 83.0 0 954 92.5 14 
 


 

Table III.1 (continued) 

22

 Hawaii Maine North Carolina 

New 

Awards 

Cumulative 

Awards 

Percentage 

of Targeted 

Awards 

New 

Awards 

Cumulative 

Awards 

Percentage 

of 

Targeted 

Awards 

New 

Awards 

Cumulative 

Awards 

Percentage 

of Targeted 

Awards 

Ne

Awa

January 2008 or Earlier 19 19 3.0 11 11 4.4 10 10 1.3 4

February 2008 60 79 12.4 49 60 24.0 6 16 2.0 32 

March 2008 39 118 18.5 14 74 29.6 19 35 4.4 7

April 2008 49 167 26.2 32 106 42.4 29 64 8.0 4

May 2008 66 233 36.5 25 131 52.4 38 102 12.8 69 

June 2008 92 325 50.9 29 160 64.0 45 147 18.4 39 July 2008 87 412 64.6 12 172 68.8 82 228 28.5 50 

August 2008 2 414 64.9 0 172 68.8 128 356 44.5 5

September 2008 0 414 64.9 0 172 68.8 63 419 52.4 11

October 2008 0 414 64.9 0 172 68.8 69 488 61.0 64 

November 2008 0 414 64.9 0 172 68.8 27 515 64.4 39 

December 2008 0 414 64.9 0 172 68.8 104 619 77.4 48 

January 2009 0 414 64.9 0 172 68.8 39 658 82.3 2

February 2009 0 414 64.9 0 172 68.8 20 678 84.8 0 

March 2009 0 414 64.9 0 172 68.8 5 683 85.4 0 

April 2009 0 414 64.9 0 172 68.8 94 777 97.1 0 

May 2009b 0 414 64.9 0 172 68.8 31 808 101.0 42 

Source: States’ May 18, 2009, reports to DOL on the number of CAAs awarded through May 15, 2009. Notes: Occasionally, the cumulative number of awards by a state for a week was lower than the number for the previous week; this 

made a correction to the prior count of awards. Because the corrections were small and could not be pinpointed to spegenerally does not incorporate modifications to the states’ data. The one exception, described below, is for California data pthe state’s correction was large. When a calendar week spanned the end of a month and the beginning of the subsequent month, the number of CAAs shown athat week is based on the proportion of weekdays that were in each of the two months. Due to rounding, the sum across statethe total for the month. The number of CAAs that have been targeted for award are 2,466 in California; 643 in Colorado; 1,031 in Florida; 719 in G

Maine; 800 in North Carolina; and 897 in Washington (Table I.2). 

aIn the weekly report dated April 14, 2008, California made a large downward revision to its cumulative number of CAAs awarded. 

information from the weekly report data that were provided by other states to impute California’s number of CAAs awarded during time 

April 2008. Maine was excluded from these calculations, because its schedule for awarding CAAs differed greatly from California’s. Ind

used for the imputation process, because there are not many spouses in the California individual-level data file during the relevant time pe

bBecause this analysis is based on May 18, 2009, weekly report data about the number of CAAs awarded through May 15, 2009, the st

might not include all CAAs awarded during the month. 

CAA = Career Advancement Account. DOL = Department of Labor. 
 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

the base closure and their relocation from the area.24 Because military families were to be 

transferred from Maine to other bases, including one that was to participate in the demonstration, 

the Maine partners tried to front-load their use of demonstration funding to give participants 

enough time to begin (and, ideally, complete) their selected programs before transfers occurred. As 

a result, Maine stopped providing new awards by the end of July 2008. 

In a similar way, Hawaii stopped providing new CAAs about one month later, in August 2008. 

Like Maine, its staff had focused on providing CAAs quickly. However, its reason for stopping the 

awarding of CAAs was different. Hawaii had initially anticipated that spouses would express interest 

in participating in short-term training programs that would not use the full $6,000 to which they 

were entitled. However, site staff learned that many spouses were interested in using the CAAs for 

two-year programs that would use all of the $6,000. Thus, during summer 2008, the state reassessed 

how many CAAs it could award after meeting its obligations to the current CAA participants. As a 

result, it suspended the provision of new awards. 

Excluding Hawaii and Maine, four of the six remaining states had stopped providing awards at 

least temporarily between the start of the grant and mid-May 2009. Table III.1 shows that Colorado 

and Washington did not provide awards for at least three months during the first part of 2009, 

although both states resumed award provision in May 2009. Florida’s last award was in February 

2009; this state had not resumed award provision by mid-May 2009. Finally, California is not shown 

to have provided any awards during May 2009, although the available information pertains to the 

first half of the month only, since the most recent weekly report that is included in this analysis 

pertained to awards through May 15, 2009 only. 

These temporary suspensions to the provision of new CAA awards arose because of states’ 

efforts during spring 2009 to manage their obligations to participants. As discussed in Chapter II, 

states needed to assess the amount of funds that could be allocated to new CAA awards after the deobligation of funds from previously awarded CAAs. This process was intended to ensure the states 

could award as many CAAs as possible but still keep their commitments to participants who had 

already been given CAAs. 

By mid-May 2009, the proportion of the target number of CAAs that had been awarded ranged 

across states from 52 to 101 percent. Two states (California and Georgia) had awarded between 50 

and 60 percent of their targets for awards; two (Hawaii and Maine) had awarded between 60 and 70 

percent of their targets; and two (Colorado and Washington) had awarded between 80 and 90 

percent. Florida had awarded 93 percent and North Carolina—at 101 percent—had awarded 

slightly more than its target.25 One possible reason some states had awarded fewer CAAs than 

initially planned was that, during the time serving spouses, they learned that the average expenditure 

per CAA was higher than the anticipated amount. 

24 BRAC is the process DoD uses to reorganize its installation infrastructure to more efficiently and effectively 

support its forces, increase operational readiness, and facilitate new ways of doing business. 

25 In August 2008, North Carolina decreased its target number of CAAs from 1,000 to 800. 

23 
 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

D. Patterns Over Time in CAA Awards by Industry 

DOL and DoD required participants to pursue education and training programs, and, 

ultimately, careers, in nationally recognized high-growth and high-demand fields. Originally, five 

industry fields were identified: (1) construction, (2) education, (3) financial services, (4) health care, 

and (5) information technology. Military spouses could select any education or training program 

appropriate for an allowed field or occupation, as long as the program is nationally or regionally 

accredited by the U.S. Department of Education (or an accrediting body recognized by the 

Department of Education) or on the state’s WIA Eligible Training Provider List. 

In April 2008, DOL and DoD expanded the list of career fields allowable for CAAs to include 

occupations in targeted industries where there is a large demand in the DoD civilian and/or general 

employment sectors. Thus, they authorized the issuance of CAAs for specific occupations in four 

additional sectors: (1) human resources, (2) hospitality, (3) homeland security, and (4) business 

administration. The difference between the initial five broad occupations and the new industries is 

that, in the new industries, training would be allowable only in specific occupations. The 

occupations within human resources that became allowed were (1) employment, recruitment, and 

placement specialists (employment interviewers and personnel recruiters); (2) interviewers, except 

eligibility and loan; (3) human resources assistants; (4) training and development specialists; and (5) 

compensation, benefits, and job analysis specialists. The occupations that became available within 

the hospitality industry included those in the culinary career ladder: (1) culinary arts, (2) chefs and 

head cooks, (3), meeting and convention planners, and (4) hospitality management. The allowable 

occupations within homeland security included (1) police, fire, and ambulance dispatchers; (2) 

security guards; (3) surveying and mapping technicians; (4) police and sheriff’s patrol officers; (5) 

police identification and records officers; (6) police detectives; and (7) fire fighters. Within business 

administration, the allowable occupations were (1) cost estimators; and (2) insurance adjusters, 

examiners, and investigators. 

DOL and DoD further expanded the list of eligible occupations in December 2008. New 

occupations under business administration included those within the secretarial and bookkeeping 

category (medical secretaries; legal secretaries; executive secretaries; and bookkeeping, accounting, 

and auditing clerks). A new category of social work became allowed, including rehabilitation 

counselors; child, family, and school social workers; and social and human service assistants. These 

changes applied to California, Florida, Georgia, Maine, and North Carolina only. 

Data from the weekly reports by states support the findings in the implementation report that 

health care and education occupations were the most common ones for CAA participants (see Part 

I). For each month from January 2008 to May 2009, Table III.2 shows (1) the cumulative number 

of CAAs awarded across all target industries; (2) the cumulative number of CAAs awarded in each 

target industry; and (3) for each target industry, the percentage of all awards that were in each 

industry.26 For example, the first row of the table shows that 308 CAAs had been awarded by 

26 For some months, the cumulative number of CAA awards in the “All Industries” column of Table III.2 differs 

slightly from the number in the “Cumulative Awards by the End of the Month” in Table B.1 in Appendix B. These 

small discrepancies are due to rounding that arises from the imputation of data from California. 

24 
 

Table III.2 Cumulative Number of CAA Awards Over Time, by Target Industry 

Industries Originally Specified as Acceptable 

Construction Trades Education Financial Services Health Care 

Percentage Percentage Percentage Percenta

All Cumulative of All Cumulative of All Cumulative of All Cumulative of All 

Month Industries Awards Awards Awards Awards Awards Awards Awards Awards January 2008 or Earliera 308 9 2.9 77 25.0 43 14.0 167 54.2 

February 2008a 492 10 2.0 101 20.5 76 15.4 281 57.1 

March 2008a 735 15 2.0 143 19.5 115 15.6 425 57.8 

April 2008a 1,001 19 1.9 190 19.0 145 14.5 577 57.6 

May 2008 1,544 24 1.6 293 19.0 207 13.4 869 56.3 

June 2008 1,913 29 1.5 357 18.7 247 12.9 1,045 54.6 

July 2008 2,407 36 1.5 450 18.7 292 12.1 1,288 53.5 

August 2008 2,909 43 1.5 571 19.6 327 11.2 1,500 51.6 

September 2008 3,361 46 1.4 640 19.0 372 11.1 1,749 52.0 

October 2008 3,764 50 1.3 704 18.7 411 10.9 1,950 51.8 

November 2008 4,058 52 1.3 735 18.1 430 10.6 2,157 53.2 

December 2008 4,334 53 1.2 770 17.8 457 10.5 2,322 53.6 

January 2009 4,661 53 1.1 814 17.5 475 10.2 2,523 54.1 

February 2009 4,851 56 1.2 855 17.6 475 9.8 2,627 54.2 

March 2009 5,063 57 1.1 880 17.4 487 9.6 2,766 54.6 

April 2009 5,259 57 1.1 904 17.2 505 9.6 2,869 54.6 

May 2009b 5,366 60 1.1 937 17.5 518 9.7 2,913 54.3 

25 
 

Table III.2 (continued) 

Industries Specified as Acceptable After the Start of the Grants 

Business Administration Homeland Security Hospitality Human Resources 

All 

Industries 

Cumulative 

Awards 

Percentage 

of All 

Awards 

Cumulative 

Awards 

Percentage 

of All 

Awards 

Cumulative 

Awards 

Percentage 

of All 

Awards 

Cumulative 

Awards 

Percenta

of All 

Awards 

26 

January 2008 or Earliera 308 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 

February 2008a 492 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 

March 2008a 735 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 

April 2008a 1,001 4 0.4 5 0.5 1 0.1 7 0.7 

May 2008 1,544 29 1.9 21 1.4 5 0.3 25 1.6 

June 2008 1,913 51 2.7 33 1.7 10 0.5 40 2.1 

July 2008 2,407 100 4.2 46 1.9 14 0.6 58 2.4 

August 2008 2,909 150 5.2 73 2.5 20 0.7 79 2.7 September 2008 3,361 180 5.4 89 2.6 29 0.9 93 2.8 

October 2008 3,764 212 5.6 108 2.9 36 1.0 112 3.0 

November 2008 4,058 228 5.6 110 2.7 39 1.0 118 2.9 

December 2008 4,334 248 5.7 125 2.9 43 1.0 122 2.8 

January 2009 4,661 280 6.0 138 3.0 52 1.1 139 3.0 

February 2009 4,851 297 6.1 147 3.0 55 1.1 145 3.0 

March 2009 5,063 309 6.1 157 3.1 60 1.2 147 2.9 

April 2009 5,259 337 6.4 160 3.0 60 1.1 152 2.9 May 2009b 5,366 353 6.6 166 3.1 60 1.1 149 2.8 

Source: States’ May 18, 2009, reports to DOL on the number of CAAs awarded through May 15, 2009. Notes: Occasionally, the cumulative number of awards by a state for a week was lower than the number for the previous week; this 

made a correction to the prior count of awards. Because the corrections were small and could not be pinpointed to spegenerally does not incorporate modifications to the states’ data. The one exception, described below, is for California data pthe state’s correction was large. When a calendar week spanned the end of a month and the beginning of the subsequent month, the number of CAAs shown athat week is based on the proportion of weekdays that were in each of the two months. Due to rounding, the sum across statethe total for the month. The number of CAAs that have been targeted for award are 2,466 in California; 643 in Colorado; 1,031 in Florida; 719 in G

Maine; 800 in North Carolina; and 897 in Washington (Table I.2). 

aIn the weekly report dated April 14, 2008, California made a large downward revision to its cumulative number of CAAs awarded. 

information from the weekly report data that were provided by other states to impute California’s number of CAAs awarded during time April 2008. Maine was excluded from these calculations, because its schedule for awarding CAAs differed greatly from California’s. Indused for the imputation process, because there are not many spouses in the California individual-level data file during the relevant time pe

bBecause this analysis is based on May 18, 2009, weekly report data about the number of CAAs awarded through May 15, 2009, the st

might not include all CAAs awarded during the month. 

CAA = Career Advancement Account. DOL = Department of Labor. 
MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

January 2008 or earlier. Of these, 9 had been awarded for training, education, or credential 

attainment in the construction industry; these 9 represent 2.9 percent of the 308 awards. In a similar 

way, the next row in the table shows that 492 CAAs had been awarded by the end of February 2008; 

10 were in the construction industry, and these 10 represent 2.0 percent of the 492 awards. Because 

there are 10 industries for which awards could be made, the columns for the industries span across 

two panels in the table—with 5 industries shown in each panel. However, for each month for 

which data are reported, the percentages of CAAs awarded in each of the 10 industries sum to 100 

percent. 

During each month, education, training, or credentialing in the health care field accounted for 

more than half of all CAAs that had been awarded (Table III.2). As of mid-May 2009, more than 

2,900 CAAs had been awarded to participants to develop careers in health care. The education field, 

at 937 CAAs awarded by mid-May 2009, accounted for at least one out of every six CAAs (about 17 

percent). The next most common field was financial services, for which 518 CAAs had been 

awarded (slightly less than 10 percent of all CAAs). As of early 2009, business administration 

averaged about 7 percent of all awards, even though it was not allowed early in the demonstration. 

Fewer CAAs have been given out for education, training, or credentialing in the other fields (such as 

construction, information technology, and social work), either because they have been less popular 

choices for participants or because they were newly added fields. 

27 

 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

IV. SPONSORS’ AND PARTICIPANTS’ CHARACTERISTICS 

As the demonstration evolved, the grantees recruited, enrolled, and served military spouses with 

a wide range of characteristics and experiences. As described in more detail in Chapter I, eligibility 

for a CAA has been limited to military spouses with certain characteristics. Spouses must have had 

at least a high school diploma or General Educational Development (GED) credential when they 

applied for a CAA. Generally speaking, to be eligible for a CAA, the military spouses also must have 

been married to a service member (a “sponsor”) with a minimum of one year of duty assignment left 

at the demonstration base. However, two exceptions for this eligibility criterion existed. One was 

for sponsor assignments that would require relocation as part of the Base Realignment and Closure 

Act of 2005 (BRAC). The other was if a spouse selected an approved training program that could 

be completed before departure from the assigned base and that would yield a license or certification. 

Furthermore, DOL and DoD initially restricted eligibility to military spouses married to a service 

member/sponsor who was at the E1-E4 levels (junior enlisted service members), E5 level 

(noncommissioned officer), or O1-O3 levels (junior commissioned officers). In April 2008, this 

restriction was lifted, and military spouses of service members of all ranks became eligible. 

Understanding the backgrounds of military spouse participants in the demonstration makes it 

possible to assess who has been served by the CAA program. Furthermore, information about the 

characteristics of the CAA participants provides a context for the analysis of the spouses’ plans for 

their CAAs (described in Chapter V). While the weekly report data used for the analysis in the 

previous chapter provides an overview of the patterns in CAA awards over time, these data cannot 

provide insights about the characteristics of the participating spouses and their families. Instead, 

individual-level data collected by grantees was used for an in-depth description of the CAA 

participants and their families. 

This chapter begins with detailed descriptions of the individual-level data used in this chapter 

and Chapter V, the methods used for analysis, and the data’s limitations (Section A). This section 

also presents information about how the individual-level data compare to the weekly report 

(aggregate) data discussed in Chapter III. Then, because of the strong influence of the 

characteristics of sponsors on the eligibility of the military spouses for a CAA, Section B begins with 

information about the sponsors. It also presents information about the spouses themselves when 

they applied for a CAA. 

A. Description of the Individual-Level Data, the Analysis Methods, and 

Limitations 

Evaluation partner Coffey Consulting, LLC, developed an Access data tool that site staff could use 

to record individual-level information on a broad set of topics. Data items focused on participants’ 

characteristics, their planned use of the CAA, whether they completed CAA-funded programs in 

which they enrolled, whether they attained credentials, their receipt of other services from military or 

workforce investment staff as they attended education or training programs or worked, the total 

amount of CAA funds disbursed, and post-CAA subsequent employment and earnings. The list of 

data items included in the data tool was developed in an iterative process with input from staff at 

DOL, DoD, Mathematica, Coffey Consulting, and the sites. 

29 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

Key Findings about Sponsors and Participants’ Characteristics 

•	 The set of spouses upon which the analysis of sponsor and spouse characteristics is based 

differs from all spouses who received CAAs. Spouses from California and North Carolina 

were overrepresented in the analysis data, while spouses from Hawaii and Maine were 

underrepresented. Nevertheless, the analysis provides some insights about the 

characteristics of sponsors and military spouses who received CAAs. 

•	 The Marines were more likely than other branches of service to have sponsors of CAA 

recipients who were of junior enlisted ranks. The Air Force was more likely than other 

branches of service to have high-ranking officers as sponsors. 

•	 Eighty-eight percent of all spouses had sponsors who were enlisted. However, about twofifths of spouses had sponsors whose ranks would have made the spouses initially 

ineligible for a CAA (spouses with sponsors of rank E6 or higher, O4 or higher, or another 

type of rank). The average length of time that sponsors had remaining on base at the time 

of the CAA application was 2.5 years. The Marines were more likely than other branches of 

service to have sponsors of CAA recipients who were of junior enlisted ranks. The Air 

Force was more likely than other branches of service to have high-ranking officers as 

sponsors. 

•	 Overall, 97 percent of CAA participants were female. Their average age was 29 years. 

Depending on how we handle spouses with missing information, we estimate that either 57 

or 69 percent of spouses had young children under age 13; among those who had young 

children, the average number of young children was 2. About one-third of spouses had a 

high school diploma as their highest education level attained, while an almost comparable 

share had some college but no diploma or degree. 

•	 At the time of the spouses’ applications for a CAA, around half to two-thirds were not 

working, and about one-quarter had never worked. Depending on how spouses with 

missing data compare to spouses with nonmissing data, the percentage who were formerly 

employed but not working when they applied for a CAA was about 28 to 36 percent, and 

those who had never worked was about 22 to 28 percent of the sample. The rest, those 

employed when they applied for a CAA, was about 29 to 37 percent. 

•	 The most common types of jobs for spouses who were currently or formerly employed 

when they applied for a CAA were office and administrative support jobs and sales-related 

jobs. However, spouses had been employed in a wide range of jobs. On average, spouses 

for whom data was nonmissing earned $10.74 per hour and worked 33 hours per week in 

their current or most recent job. 

•	 Spouses who had worked but who were no longer working reported a wide range of 

reasons for no longer being at their former jobs. Having quit due to a Permanent Change 

of Station (PCS) or for other reasons was common. 

Individual-level information on spouses is available from all grantees except Maine. DOL did 

not ask Maine staff to record individual-level information on spouses in the data tool because Maine 

had stopped awarding its CAAs by the end of July 2008, around the time when sites were to begin 

using the data tool. 

1. The Sample Frame for Analysis 

DOL instructed sites (except Maine) to record in the Access data tool the information on 

participants who were approved for a CAA on or after July 28, 2008. Since sites began awarding 

CAAs around January 2008, they could choose whether or not to enter information on spouses who 

began their CAA participation before this date. Some sites chose to record information on the 

previously enrolled spouses, although obtaining all the information for these spouses was not 

30 
 

 

 

 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

typically feasible because the data tool contained fields for information that the sites had not already 

collected. While spouses who began their CAA participation after late July 2008 might have 

different characteristics and experiences than those who began participation earlier, examining the 

information on CAA participants who began participation in or after late July 2008 still is useful for 

understanding who has participated in the program. 

To avoid potential biases due to the optional nature of data entry about spouses who began 

CAA participation before late July 2008, it was important to determine the sample frame for 

analysis—that is, which spouses from among all spouses in the sites’ data sets should be included in 

the sample used for the analysis of the characteristics of sponsors, spouses, and CAA plans. 

Because the data tool became available after sites began to award CAAs, and information is missing 

on some spouses, it was useful to investigate answers to two related questions. The first question 

was, “What information in the data tool should be used to determine the date when a spouse was 

approved for a CAA?” Although the data tool includes an item for a final eligibility date—on which 

a spouse was determined to have met all eligibility criteria for receipt of a CAA—missing 

information for this data item suggested that other data items should be considered as back-up dates 

for the CAA approval date. The second question was, “What, if any, cutoff date should be used to 

restrict the sample?” While sites were instructed to enter information about spouses who were 

approved for a CAA on or after July 28, 2008, an earlier or later date might be more appropriate on 

the basis of sites’ use of the data tool. 

Based on an exploration of the quality and completeness of the data, the analysis sample was 

restricted to spouses who had an enrollment date on or after June 14, 2008. This date was 

determined as optimal after an enrollment date was constructed through checking for nonmissing 

values of five CAA-related dates in the data tool.27 This approach yields an analysis sample 

containing 2,630 spouses, a number that corresponds reasonably well to the weekly report 

information on the number of spouses who were awarded CAAs during the time from mid-July 

2008 to February 2009, when extracts of the data in the Access tool were received for analysis.28 

Defining the analysis sample in this way also protects the analysis against possible biases due to gaps 

in information about spouses who were awarded CAAs before mid-July 2008. 

2. Analysis Methods 

As with the aggregate weekly report data, the analysis of individual-level data about spouses and 

sponsors is primarily descriptive and does not take into account correlations or causal relationships 

among data items. Information is presented for all states combined, as well for two types of 

subgroups of spouses: (1) those based on the military branch of the sponsors, and (2) those based 

on the military rank of the sponsors.29 For each topic that uses individual-level data, such as the 

27 The term “enrollment date” is not officially used in the data tool. However, it was used for the purpose of 

restricting the analysis sample to mean the date in which a spouse was awarded a CAA. Appendix A describes in detail 

the process of constructing the sample frame. 

28 The precise number of spouses to be expected in the individual-level data depends on the specific dates that 

each extract was received; however, if one assumes that all extracts were received on February 27, 2009, an estimate of 

the expected number is 2,675. 

29 The branch of service is missing for a few spouses, so—for this subgroup analysis—the sum of the spouses 

shown for each subgroup is slightly lower than the total number of spouses in the analysis. 

31 
MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

demographic characteristics of the CAA participant, there are two very similar tables. The first one 

reports statistics for subgroups by branch of service, while the second reports statistics for 

subgroups by military rank. However, because of the strong relationship between the information 

presented in each set of two tables, the discussion about each topic often intermixes findings from 

the two tables. In addition, results of statistical tests of differences across subgroups are not 

presented, since the analysis is descriptive only and since hypotheses about the differences between 

the subgroups have not been formed. 

Ultimately, while this report presents differences by military branch in the characteristics of 

participating spouses and their sponsors, one cannot attribute these differences to inherent features 

of the branches of service. For example, a difference between the Army and the Navy in the speed 

with which CAA applicants were determined eligible for a CAA does not imply that this difference 

would persist in a CAA-like program implemented at other bases besides those in this 

demonstration. Likewise, differences between the characteristics of spouses with Army sponsors 

and those with Navy sponsors, for example, cannot be projected to all spouses with sponsors in 

those branches of service. 

3. Data Limitations 

Although extensive effort has been undertaken both to develop the data tool and to record 

information in it, the individual-level data and analysis of them have limitations. This section 

discusses two limitations and the strategies used in the reporting of the analysis to address them. 

The individual-level data analysis is restricted to descriptive information about the 

characteristics of spouses, their families, and their CAA plans when the spouses began their 

involvement in the demonstration. When the data tool was being developed, it was understood 

that information on outcomes such as spouses’ completion of their training programs, attainment of 

credentials, and post-training employment experiences would not be available for this report. This is 

due to a combination of (1) when the data tool became available to sites, (2) the schedule for the 

collection of the data for analysis, and (3) the lengths of the training programs in which spouses 

have been participating. Sites received the data tool in July 2008, and the evaluation schedule 

required collection of the data in the first quarter of 2009 so this report could be provided to DOL 

in summer 2009. Thus, at most, information would be available for the seven to eight months after 

spouses were approved for their CAAs. In many cases, the available information would cover a 

shorter period, since spouses were enrolling from July 2008 to early 2009. However, because CAAs 

can be used to pay for up to two years of training, it was expected that most spouses would still be 

in training when sites provided their data for analysis. These expectations were confirmed: very few 

spouses in the data extracts received in early 2009 had information on outcomes. Because the data 

show a large proportion of spouses had planned to participate in education or training programs that 

would last more than one year, it is likely that statistics about the outcomes of the few spouses with 

outcomes data would not be representative of the fuller set of spouses in the analysis. (See Chapter 

V for more details about spouses’ training and education plans.) Therefore, results on the outcomes 

for these spouses are not presented. 

Information on the data items that are included in the analysis is incomplete. Extracts 

of the data were made during fall 2008 to provide an early glimpse of the data. They showed high 

rates of missing information. Site staff provided several reasons for this. One that site staff 

frequently gave was that many spouses enrolled before sites had the procedures in place to collect 

the data. While this was expected to be true for spouses who began their participation before July 

32 
 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

2008, some staff reported that this also was the case for spouses who began their participation after 

July 2008. Staff reported not receiving the systems to collect the information—namely, the papercopy form and the Access data tool—until after they were expected to have begun recording 

information. Some staff tried to collect the missing information from spouses after they began their 

CAA participation. However, doing so proved to be challenging, time-consuming, and not fully 

successful. Staff also reported that some spouses declined to provide pieces of information, and 

some information (such as the O*Net codes for the occupation for which a spouse was training) 

was infeasible or extremely burdensome for site staff to collect. Furthermore, some site staff had to 

record similar pieces of information in both the demonstration-specific data tool and data systems 

routinely used to record information about customers. The need to record information in two 

separate systems is likely to have imposed additional challenges to the provision of high-quality, 

comprehensive data, especially for staff who already faced time pressure in their workloads. 

Between when test extracts of data in fall 2008 were provided and when the final extracts for 

analysis in early 2009 were provided, both DOL and Mathematica worked with a few sites to reduce 

the rates of missing data. However, while the quality of the data improved, gaps in the data 

remained in most cases. 

To ensure that the quality of the data is clearly presented in this report, a guideline has been 

used for when to report the percentage of spouses with missing information on a data item. In most 

cases, the percentage of spouses with missing data for a data item is reported when this percentage is 

greater than 10 percent of the spouses in the analysis. The percentage of spouses with missing data 

is reported in these cases, to highlight the potential for the spouses with nonmissing data to be 

nonrepresentative of all spouses in the analysis data file. If no more than 10 percent of the spouses 

have missing data, the percentage typically is not reported. In these cases, the information based on 

nonmissing data is more likely to be representative of all spouses in the analysis file. However, in a 

few cases, a different threshold was used for determining whether information about the percentage 

of the sample with missing data should be reported because of variation across the subgroups in the 

sample. The 10 percent cutoff was selected to balance the competing desires to (1) clearly present 

information on the quality of the data when low quality might influence interpretation of the 

statistics, and (2) avoid distracting the reader or pointing out trivial weaknesses in the data when the 

quality of the data is high. However, this guideline means that there are tables in the report in which 

some data items have rows for missing data and other data items do not. In all cases, the reported 

statistics for the categories of the data item sum across the categories to 100 percent. 

To help in the interpretation of the most important statistics when there is a high prevalence of 

missing data, the report occasionally presents statistics that adjust for the missing information. For 

example, a table might show statistics that indicate that 50 percent of the spouses were reported to 

have a certain characteristic, but only 80 percent of spouses had nonmissing information. In this 

case, the report might also indicate in the text that, after adjusting for the missing data, the 

percentage of spouses with that characteristic was 63 percent ( = 50 percent divided by 80 percent). 

While the 63 percent statistic would not be shown in a table, it and the information that is in the 

table provide the reader estimates of the actual statistic based on different assumptions about the 

missing data. 

4. Overview of the Analysis Sample 

The focus of the individual-level data on spouses who were awarded CAAs in mid-July 2008 or 

later, coupled with the patterns of CAA awards in different states over time, means that information 

about the characteristics of spouses, sponsors, and CAA plans is based on a set of spouses who 

33 
 

 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

differ somewhat from all spouses who have participated in the demonstration (Table IV.1). For 

example, California accounts for 34 percent of spouses in the individual-level data, whereas 26 

percent of CAA awards were from California as of May 15, 2009, based on the aggregate weekly 

report data. North Carolina also comprises a larger percentage of the spouses in the individual-level 

data (20 percent), compared to its share of all CAA awards (15 percent). In contrast, Hawaii 

represents a smaller share in the individual-level data than in the aggregate data. As discussed above, 

Maine was not required to collect individual-level data. In addition, as shown in Chapter III, Hawaii 

discontinued enrolling spouses in August 2008, which means that most of the Hawaii spouses were 

awarded CAAs during the time before the frame for the individual-level data. The shares that each 

of the other states (Colorado, Florida, Georgia, and Washington) represents in each data source are 

within a few percentage points of each other. Thus, these four states are not significantly under- or 

overrepresented in the individual-level data compared to their shares of all awards as of mid-May 

2009. 

Regardless of the details of the data collection process, one could expect that spouses with 

military sponsors of a certain branch of service are concentrated in a few states. This is because of 

the sizes of the grants to each state and the branch(es) of service participating in each state. For 

example, California and North Carolina’s grants are the largest, at $10.1 and $7.0 million, 

respectively; the smallest grant went to Maine, which received $750,000. Together, California and 

North Carolina received nearly half (48 percent) of the $35.2 million in grant funding awarded for 

the demonstration. Thus, one would expect that a large portion of all spouses who received CAAs 

would be from these two states. Furthermore, since California’s grant focused on Marine and Navy 

bases and North Carolina’s focused on Army and Air Force bases, one could expect that a large 

portion of spouses with Marine or Navy sponsors are from California and a large portion of spouses 

with Air Force or Army sponsors are from North Carolina.30 

Data confirm that spouses with military sponsors of a certain branch of service are 

concentrated in a few states (Table IV.1). For example, almost all spouses with sponsors in the Air 

Force are in Colorado, Florida, and North Carolina. Spouses with sponsors in the Army are 

predominantly in Colorado, Georgia, North Carolina, and Washington. Ninety-seven percent of 

spouses with Marine sponsors are in California. Spouses with Navy sponsors are primarily in 

California, Florida, and Washington. When reviewing the findings based on military branch 

subgroups, therefore, it is important to keep in mind that most of the spouses with sponsors from 

each branch of service are at only a few bases and in a few states. 

30The four branches of service are not uniformly represented in the grantee states, and the states concentrated their 

grant activities on a few bases within the state. Further detail about the bases included in each grant and the grant sizes 

is included in Part I of this document. 

34 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

Table IV.1 Distribution of Military Spouses Across States and Sites, by Military Branch of Sponsor (In Percentages 

Unless Stated Otherwise) 

Individual-Level Data 

Aggregate All 

State and Site Data Spouses Air Force Army Marines Navy 

Californiaa 25.6 34.0 0.0 0.3 97.3 65.4 

Camp Pendleton -- 18.1 0.0 0.1 97.3 5.5 

San Diego -- 15.8 0.0 0.2 0.0 59.9 

Colorado 10.0 10.3 19.8 17.5 0.0 0.6 

Floridaa 17.8 14.7 63.9 0.9 0.0 20.5 

Fort Walton Beachb -- 9.3 63.9 0.6 0.0 0.3 

Jacksonville -- 5.4 0.0 0.3 0.0 20.3 

Georgia 7.0 8.6 0.0 20.2 0.0 0.1 

Hawaiic 7.7 1.2 1.4 0.8 2.0 1.3 

Maine 3.2 -- -- -- -- --

North Carolina 15.1 19.8 10.9 42.3 0.7 0.9 

Washingtona 13.7 11.2 4.1 18.1 0.0 11.1 

Kitsap -- 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 

Pierce -- 8.3 4.1 18.1 0.0 0.0 

Sample Size 5,366 2,630 368 1,117 450 691 

Source:	 Individual-level data on clients provided by Military Spouse CAA Demonstration grantees. Aggregate data 

from the May 18, 2009, grantees’ reports to DOL on the number of CAAs awarded through May 15, 2009. 

Notes:	 Each site that issued CAAs to military spouses after mid-July 2008 provided an extract of its database 

between February 10 and March 6, 2009, for this analysis. Spouses from Maine, one of the eight CAA 

grantees, are not included in this analysis because Maine did not issue new CAAs after mid-July 2008. 

The sum of the sample sizes in the columns for the four branches of military service is four spouses fewer 

than the sample size reported in the “All Spouses” column because information on the branch of service 

of the sponsors is missing for four spouses. 

a

The sum of the statistics in the site-specific rows might not sum to the statistics in the row for the entire state. In 

California, Florida, and Washington, this pattern could arise due to rounding. An additional reason in California is that 

two spouses could not be assigned to either the Camp Pendleton site or the San Diego site. The data for both sites in 

California were provided in a single file. 

b

The Fort Walton Beach data were provided in two files, one for Eglin Air Force Base and one for Hurlburt. The data 

from these files has been combined for analysis. 

c

The Hawaii data were provided in three files: one for the Kaneohe Marine base, one for the Pearl Harbor Navy and 

Hickam Air Force bases, and one for the Schofield Army base. The data from these files has been combined for 

analysis. 

CAA = Career Advancement Account. 

35 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

Likewise, CAA recipients with sponsors of a certain military rank are not represented across 

states in the individual-level data in the same way as they are in the aggregate data (Table IV.2). For 

example, while California awarded 34 percent of CAAs as of May 15, 2009, based on the aggregate 

data from states’ weekly reports to DOL, 44 percent of spouses in the individual-level data with 

junior enlisted sponsors (of rank E1 through E4) are from California. In contrast, 22 percent of the 

highest-ranking officers (O4 through O10) are from California. Florida shows a different pattern. 

In the aggregate data, 15 percent of spouses are from Florida; at 13 percent, the state is very slightly 

underrepresented in the spouses with junior enlisted sponsors (E1 through E4). However, the state 

is responsible for 32 percent of the highest-ranking officers (O4 through O10). Section B shows 

there is variation across the branches of services in the proportion of spouses with sponsors of 

different military ranks. Because the branches are not uniformly distributed across states, the 

sponsors of different military ranks are not uniformly distributed across states. 

Table IV.2 Distribution of Military Spouses Across States and Sites, by Military Rank of Sponsor (In Percentages 

Unless Stated Otherwise) 

Individual-Level Data 

Aggregate All E1 to E6 to O1 to O4 to 

State and Site Data Spouses E4 E5 E9 O3 O10 Other 

Californiaa 25.6 34.0 43.6 37.2 26.9 27.9 22.2 30.6 

Camp Pendleton -- 18.1 27.2 20.5 11.0 16.2 4.9 16.1 

San Diego -- 15.8 16.3 16.7 15.9 11.7 17.3 11.3 

Colorado 10.0 10.3 9.4 9.4 9.9 15.2 14.8 16.1 

Floridaa 17.8 14.7 12.7 16.7 13.4 20.3 32.1 0.0 

Fort Walton Beachb -- 9.3 8.9 9.3 8.9 10.7 21.0 0.0 

Jacksonville -- 5.4 3.9 7.4 4.5 9.6 11.1 0.0 

Georgia 7.0 8.6 6.6 7.7 11.2 10.2 2.5 4.8 

Hawaiic 7.7 1.2 1.2 1.5 1.0 1.5 2.5 0.0 

Maine 3.2 -- -- -- -- -- -- --

North Carolina 15.1 19.8 14.3 17.5 26.0 13.7 18.5 37.1 

Washingtona 13.7 11.2 12.1 9.9 11.7 11.2 7.4 11.3 

Kitsap -- 2.9 2.5 1.9 4.2 2.0 3.7 0.0 

Pierce -- 8.3 9.6 8.1 7.4 9.1 3.7 11.3 

Sample Size 5,366 2,630 753 594 943 197 81 62 

Source:	 Individual-level data on clients provided by Military Spouse CAA Demonstration grantees. Aggregate data 

from the May 18, 2009, grantees’ reports to DOL on the number of CAAs awarded through May 15, 2009. 

Notes:	 Each site that issued CAAs to military spouses after mid-July 2008 provided an extract of its database 

between February 10 and March 6, 2009, for this analysis. Spouses from Maine, one of the eight CAA 

grantees, are not included in this analysis because Maine did not issue new CAAs after mid-July 2008. 

a

The sum of the statistics in the site-specific rows might not sum to the statistics in the row for the entire state. In 

California, Florida, and Washington, this pattern could arise due to rounding. An additional reason in California is that 

two spouses could not be assigned to either the Camp Pendleton site or the San Diego site. The data for both sites in 

California were provided in a single file. 

b

The Fort Walton Beach data were provided in two files, one for Eglin Air Force Base and one for Hurlburt. The data 

from these files has been combined for analysis. 

c

The Hawaii data were provided in three files: one for the Kaneohe Marine base, one for the Pearl Harbor Navy and 

Hickam Air Force bases, and one for the Schofield Army base. The data from these files has been combined for 

analysis. 

CAA = Career Advancement Account. 

36 
 

 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

B. Characteristics of the Military Sponsors and the CAA Participants 

Based on program eligibility rules, a military spouse becomes eligible for a CAA based in part 

on the characteristics of the sponsors. Examining the proportion of spouses with sponsors from 

different branches and ranks provides information about the provision of CAA services to spouses 

based on the military affiliations of the sponsors. It also can provide indirect insights about the 

characteristics of the military families to which CAA recipients belong. 

1. Characteristics of Sponsors 

Within the analysis sample, 43 percent of all spouses had Army sponsors (Figure IV.1). The 

next most common branch of service was the Navy, with 26 percent of sponsors. The Air Force 

and Marines represented 14 and 17 percent of sponsors, respectively. 

About 88 percent of all spouses had sponsors who were enlisted (E-level sponsors) while 

almost all of the remainder were officers (O-level sponsors).31 Twenty-nine percent had sponsors of 

rank E1 to E4, 23 percent had sponsors of rank E5, and 36 percent had higher-ranking enlisted 

sponsors. The rest consisted of spouses with officer sponsors (8 percent with rank O1 to O3 and 3 

percent with rank O4 or higher) and sponsors of another type of rank (such as warrant officers, at 2 

percent). For most military personnel, the monthly salary depends on the military personnel’s years 

of service and rank. For example, as of April 2007, military basic monthly pay for active duty 

personnel was $1,301 for an E-1 with less than 2 years of tenure; it was $2,582 for an E-5 with over 

20 years of tenure. Military basic monthly pay was $ 2,469 for an O-1 with less than 2 years of 

tenure and $5,356 for an O-3 with over 20 years of tenure (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2007).32 

About two-fifths of spouses in the analysis file had sponsors whose ranks would have made the 

spouses initially ineligible for a CAA (Figure IV.2). As mentioned earlier in this chapter, DOL and 

DoD initially restricted eligibility to military spouses married to a service member/sponsor who was 

at the E1-E5 levels or O1-O3 levels. However, in April 2008, this restriction was lifted, and military 

spouses of service members of all ranks became eligible. The individual-level data used for the 

analysis of spouses’ characteristics was restricted to spouses with enrollment dates after mid-July 

2008. Therefore, the distributions of sponsors’ military ranks shown in Figure IV.2 are not 

influenced by the initial exclusion of spouses with sponsors of ranks E6 to E9 and O4 to O10. The 

percentages of spouses with sponsors of rank E1 to E4, E5, and O1 to O3 (which were the ranks 

that were originally targeted) were 29, 23, and 7 percent, respectively, yielding a total of 59 percent 

(after rounding is taken into account). Thus, the expansion in eligible ranks allowed participation by 

a large number of spouses with more senior enlisted or officer sponsors, as well as some spouses 

with sponsors of another type of rank. 

31 Generally, enlisted services members have at least a high school diploma, or an equivalent credential, while 

officers have a bachelor’s or graduate degree. 

32 In addition to a monthly salary, all service members receive benefits such as housing and subsistence allowance, 

medical and dental care, and annual vacations. 

37 
MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

38 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

Across branches of service, the Marines showed the highest percentage of spouses with 

sponsors of lower-level enlisted ranks. Among spouses with Marine sponsors, 43 percent were 

ranked E1 to E4, and 8 percent were of an any officer rank (Table IV.3).33,34 Other branches of 

service had higher proportions of spouses with sponsors who were officers or of higher enlisted 

ranks. For example, 25 percent of sponsors in the Air Force base had a rank from E1 to E4, while 

20 percent were officers. This relationship between rank and branch of service can be viewed in 

Table IV.3 Characteristics of Military Sponsors, by Military Branch of Sponsor (In Percentages Unless 

Stated Otherwise) 

All Spouses Air Force Army Marines Navy 

Military Sponsor’s Rank 

E1 to E4 28.8 25.3 25.0 43.3 27.5 

E5 22.7 19.6 21.7 25.7 24.3 

E6 to E9 36.1 35.6 42.1 21.4 36.4 

O1 to O3 7.5 11.7 6.7 6.5 7.4 

O4 to O10 3.1 7.9 1.8 1.1 3.9 

Othera 1.6 0.0 2.8 2.0 0.4 

Length Remaining at Current Assignmentb 

Less than one year 6.7 4.6 3.3 10.9 10.4 

One to two years 26.7 22.0 16.9 34.0 40.4 

Two to three years 29.0 18.8 31.9 27.6 30.8 

More than three years 27.5 16.0 40.0 26.2 14.2 

Missing 10.2 38.6 7.9 1.3 4.2 

Average lengthc

 (years) 2.5 2.4 3.0 2.3 2.1 

Sample Size 2,630 368 1,117 450 691 

Source: Individual-level data on clients provided by Military Spouse CAA Demonstration grantees. 

Notes: Each site that issued CAAs to military spouses after mid-July 2008 provided an extract of its 

database between February 10 and March 6, 2009, for this analysis. Spouses from Maine, one 

of the eight CAA grantees, are not included in this analysis because Maine did not issue new 

CAAs after mid-July 2008. 

The sum of the sample sizes in the columns for the four branches of military service is four 

spouses fewer than the sample size reported in the “All Spouses” column because information 

on the branch of service of the sponsors is missing for four spouses. 

a

Almost all spouses in this category have sponsors who are warrant officers (W1 through W5). However, 

there is one spouse for whom the sponsor rank was listed in the Access data tool as an “other” rank. 

b

This is calculated using the enrollment date as the starting point for the length of time remaining in the 

current assignment. Appendix A describes how the enrollment date, which is not a term officially used in 

the Demonstration, is defined. 

c

This is calculated for spouses with nonmissing information for this data item. 

CAA = Career Advancement Account. 

33 The “All Spouses” column in Table IV.3 duplicates the information in Figure IV.2. 

34 Tables IV.3 and IV.4 differ slightly from each other, since statistics that would be primarily tautological, such as 

the percentage of Air Force sponsors that are in the Air Force, are deleted from each table. The information that is not 

tautological is presented in the figures in the chapter. 

39 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

another way in Table IV.4.35 While 17 percent of all spouses had Marine sponsors, 26 percent of 

spouses with sponsors of rank E1 through E4 and 6 percent of spouses with sponsors of rank O4 

or higher were from the Marines. Fourteen percent of all spouses had Air Force sponsors, but 36 

percent of spouses with sponsors of rank O4 or higher were from the Air Force. Navy sponsors 

also were overrepresented among the highest-ranking officers (at 33 percent), compared to the 

Navy’s share of all spouses (26 percent). 

The average length of time sponsors of spouses have remaining on base, based on spouses with 

nonmissing information, was 2.5 years (Table IV.3). Eligibility for a CAA was restricted throughout 

much of the demonstration period to military spouses with sponsors who had a minimum of one 

year of duty assignment left at the demonstration base, although an exception was when the spouse 

Table IV.4 Characteristics of Military Sponsors, by Military Rank of Sponsor (In Percentages Unless 

Stated Otherwise)

 All E1 to O1 to O4 to 

Spouses E4 E5 E6 to E9 O3 O10 Other 

Branch of Service 

Air Force 14.0 12.4 12.1 13.9 21.8 35.8 0.0 

Army 42.5 36.8 40.4 49.4 37.6 24.7 69.0 

Marines 17.1 25.8 19.4 10.2 14.7 6.2 19.0 

Navy 26.3 25.1 28.1 26.5 25.9 33.3 12.1 

Length Remaining at Current Assignmenta 

Less than one year 6.7 6.2 8.4 5.9 6.6 9.9 3.2 

One to two years 26.7 26.6 25.3 27.1 31.5 34.6 9.7 

Two to three years 29.0 31.2 29.8 28.2 25.9 23.5 22.6 

More than three years 27.5 26.7 27.8 29.0 23.9 12.3 41.9 

Missing 10.2 9.3 8.8 9.8 12.2 19.8 22.6 

Average lengthb

 (years) 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.5 2.1 3.3 

Sample Size 2,630 753 594 943 197 81 62 

Source: Individual-level data on clients provided by Military Spouse CAA Demonstration grantees. 

Notes: Each site that issued CAAs to military spouses after mid-July 2008 provided an extract of its 

database between February 10 and March 6, 2009, for this analysis. Spouses from Maine, one 

of the eight CAA grantees, are not included in this analysis because Maine did not issue new 

CAAs after mid-July 2008. 

a

This is calculated using the enrollment date as the starting point for the length of time remaining in the 

current assignment. Appendix A describes how the enrollment date, which is not a term officially used in 

the Demonstration, is defined. 

b

This is calculated for spouses with nonmissing information for this data item. 

CAA = Career Advancement Account. 

35 The “All Spouses” column in Table IV.4 duplicates the information in Figure IV.1. 

40 
 

 

 

 

 

 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

selected training that could be completed before departure from the assigned base.36 About 7 

percent of sponsors had less than one year remaining on base. About equal percentages of sponsors 

had one to two years on base (27 percent), two to three years on base (29 percent), and more than 

three years on base (28 percent). However, 10 percent had missing information on this measure. 

Spouses with sponsors in the Army tended to have the longest time remaining on base, on average, 

at three years. Navy sponsors had the shortest average remaining time on base, at 2.1 years. 

Across all the grouped categories of rank of sponsors, the average length of time remaining in 

the current assignment ranged from 2.1 years for officers of rank O4 or higher to 3.3 years for 

spouses with sponsors of an “other” rank, typically warrant officers (Table IV.4). Most of the other 

categories of rank averaged about 2.5 years remaining on base at the time of the CAA enrollment. 

2. Demographic Characteristics of CAA Participants 

Consistent with the information site staff provided during site visits (see Part I), high 

proportions of CAA recipients were female and young, and many had young children (Table IV.5).37 

Overall, 97 percent of spouses in the analysis sample are female, and 95 percent or more of the 

spouses affiliated through their sponsors with each branch of service are female. With an average 

age of 29 years, 35 percent were age 18 to 25 when they submitted the process form, 45 percent 

were age 26 to 35, and 19 percent were older. Spouses with Marine sponsors tended to be younger 

than those with sponsors from other branches of services: 56 percent of spouses with Marine 

sponsors were age 25 or younger. Depending on how we handle spouses with missing information, 

we estimate that either 57 or 69 percent of spouses had young children under age 13; among those 

who had young children, the average number of young children was 2. 

Table IV.5 Demographic Profile of CAA Recipients, by Military Branch of Sponsor (In Percentages 

Unless Stated Otherwise)

 All Spouses Air Force Army Marines Navy 

Percentage Female 97.3 94.8 97.3 99.6 97.3 

Age (years)a 

18 to 25 35.2 30.5 29.8 56.1 32.6 

26 to 35 45.4 44.4 50.0 33.9 46.2 

36 and older 19.4 25.1 20.2 10.0 21.2 

Average age 29.3 30.4 29.9 26.3 29.9 

Has Children Under Age 13? 

Yes 57.3 60.3 54.5 48.2 66.1 

No 26.1 24.2 21.6 38.0 26.8 

Missing 16.6 15.5 23.9 13.8 7.1 

Average Number of Children Under Age 13, If Any 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.7 1.9 

36 In June 2009, DOL eliminated the criterion that the service member needed to have a minimum of one year 

remaining at the demonstration installation duty assignment. This policy change did not affect the spouses in the 

analysis sample, since the data extracts were received before this change. 

37 Throughout this chapter, all findings from the implementation study are from Part I of this document. 

41 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

Table IV.5 (continued) 

 All Spouses Air Force Army Marines Navy 

Racial and/or Hispanic Status 

White, non-Hispanic 52.4 66.0 53.2 52.3 44.9 

Black or African American, non-Hispanic 21.0 15.9 26.5 13.1 20.9 

Asian, non-Hispanic 6.5 4.4 3.8 4.7 12.4 

Other, non-Hispanicb

 3.2 1.9 3.2 4.0 3.2 

Hispanicc 17.0 11.8 13.3 25.8 18.6 

Education 

High school diploma 35.0 28.8 24.9 53.9 40.9 

GED or equivalent 4.0 3.7 3.8 6.5 2.8 

Some college but no diploma or degree 32.8 37.0 43.8 23.7 19.9 

Vocational/technical/business diploma 3.0 3.4 4.8 0.0 1.9 

Associate’s degree or diploma 12.8 13.8 12.4 6.7 16.9 

Bachelor’s degree or equivalent 10.8 11.0 8.8 7.6 16.0 

Otherd

 1.6 2.4 1.5 1.6 1.5 

Sample Size 2,630 368 1,117 450 691 

Source:	 Individual-level data on clients provided by Military Spouse CAA Demonstration grantees. 

Notes: Each site that issued CAAs to military spouses after mid-July 2008 provided an extract of its 

database between February 10 and March 6, 2009, for this analysis. Spouses from Maine, one 

of the eight CAA grantees, are not included in this analysis because Maine did not issue new 

CAAs after mid-July 2008. 

The sum of the sample sizes in the columns for the four branches of military service is four 

spouses fewer than the sample size reported in the “All Spouses” column because information 

on the branch of service of the sponsors is missing for four spouses. 

a

Age is calculated as of the intake date. The average age is calculated based on spouses with nonmissing 

information on birth dates and intake dates. 

b

This category includes “American Indian and Alaskan Native” and “Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific 

Islander.” 

c

The method for collecting information on whether or not a spouse is Hispanic did not distinguish between 

responses of “no” and missing responses. Furthermore, 81 percent of spouses in the sample for whom 

the Hispanic box was checked were missing race information. Thus, the information about racial status 

and the information about Hispanic status have been combined into a single categorical variable. Most of 

the spouses who were recorded as Hispanic and for whom race information is nonmissing were coded as 

White. 

d

This category includes “Master’s degree,” “Ph.D.,” and “Other post-secondary degree.” 

CAA = Career Advancement Account. 

GED = General Educational Development. 

Although the data do not indicate why the differences in the average ages of CAA participants 

exist across branches of services, it is possible that the patterns relate to the differences in the rank 

of the sponsors. As discussed in the previous section, Marine sponsors were more likely to be of a 

lower enlisted rank than were sponsors in other branches of service, while Air Force sponsors were 

more likely to be officers, including high-ranking ones. This view is supported by the statistics in 

Table IV.6, which show that the average age of the spouse is correlated with their sponsor’s rank. 

So, assuming that younger spouses are married to younger sponsors with more junior ranks among 

officers or enlisted personnel, it is not surprising that the spouses with Marine sponsors were, on 

average, about four years younger than the spouses with Air Force sponsors. 

42 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

Table IV.6 Demographic Profile of CAA Recipients, by Military Rank of Sponsor (In Percentages 

Unless Stated Otherwise) 

 All E1 to E6 to O1 to O4 to 

Spouses E4 E5 E9 O3 O10 Other 

Percentage Female 97.3 96.9 96.8 99.2 92.9 93.8 98.4 

Age (years)a 

18 to 25 35.2 71.2 41.4 10.2 21.2 1.2 8.3 

26 to 35 45.4 25.8 52.1 55.2 58.2 30.9 50.0 

36 and older 19.4 3.0 6.6 34.6 20.6 67.9 41.7 

Average age 29.3 24.1 27.4 33.3 30.7 38.0 35.0 

Has Children Under Age 13? 

Yes 57.3 41.0 62.5 67.3 47.2 72.8 62.9 

No 26.1 42.6 22.2 16.2 28.9 16.0 17.7 

Missing 16.6 16.3 15.3 16.4 23.9 11.1 19.4 

Average Number of Children Under Age 

13, If Any 1.9 1.6 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.1 

Racial and/or Hispanic Status 

White, non-Hispanic 52.4 58.7 49.7 45.4 67.1 73.0 35.3 

Black or African American, non-Hispanic 21.0 15.9 21.1 26.7 17.1 4.1 31.4 

Asian, non-Hispanic 6.5 4.1 5.9 9.0 5.3 5.4 5.9 

Other, non-Hispanicb

 3.2 2.9 3.9 3.1 1.8 4.1 3.9 

Hispanic, no race specifiedc 17.0 18.5 19.3 15.7 8.8 13.5 23.5 

Education 

High school diploma 35.0 43.6 38.7 31.5 15.8 17.3 26.9 

GED or equivalent 4.0 5.9 3.4 3.5 2.8 0.0 3.8 

Some college but no diploma or degree 32.8 33.4 31.5 35.6 22.0 24.0 38.5 

Vocational/technical/business diploma 3.0 2.7 2.7 3.6 2.8 1.3 5.8 

Associate’s degree or diploma 12.8 8.5 14.0 15.5 13.6 8.0 15.4 

Bachelor’s degree or equivalent 10.8 4.9 9.5 9.3 36.2 37.3 5.8 

Otherd

 1.6 1.0 0.4 0.9 6.8 12.0 3.8 

Sample Size 2,630 753 594 943 197 81 60 

Source:	 Individual-level data on clients provided by Military Spouse CAA Demonstration grantees. 

Notes: Each site that issued CAAs to military spouses after mid-July 2008 provided an extract of its 

database between February 10 and March 6, 2009, for this analysis. Spouses from Maine, one 

of the eight CAA grantees, are not included in this analysis because Maine did not issue new 

CAAs after mid-July 2008. 

a Age is calculated as of the intake date. The average age is calculated based on spouses with nonmissing 

information on birth dates and intake dates. 

b This category includes “American Indian and Alaskan Native” and “Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific 

Islander.” 

The method for collecting information on whether or not a spouse is Hispanic did not distinguish 

between responses of “no” and missing responses. Furthermore, 81 percent of spouses for whom the 

Hispanic box was checked are missing race information. Thus, the information about racial status was 

combined with the information about Hispanic status into a single categorical variable. Most of the 

spouses who were recorded as Hispanic and for whom race information is nonmissing were coded as 

White. 

d This category includes “Master’s degree,” “Ph.D.,” and “Other post-secondary degree.” 

CAA = Career Advancement Account. 

GED = General Educational Development. 

43 

c 
 

 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

The racial and ethnic composition of spouses varied across branches of service of the sponsor 

(Table IV.5). Overall, slightly more than half (52 percent) of spouses were described as white, nonHispanic; another 21 percent were black or African American, non-Hispanic; and 17 percent were 

Hispanic.38 However, across branches of service, the percentage of spouses who were white, nonHispanic ranged from 45 percent with Navy sponsors to 66 percent with Air Force sponsors. The 

percentages who were black or African American, non-Hispanic ranged from 13 percent in the 

Marines to 27 percent in the Army, while the percent who were Hispanic ranged from 12 percent 

for the Air Force to 26 percent for the Marines. 

Across ranks (Table IV.6), 73 percent of spouses with the highest-ranking officer sponsors (O4 

or higher) were white, non-Hispanic, compared to 52 percent of all spouses. Among spouses with 

high-ranking noncommissioned officers (E6 or higher), 27 percent were black or African American, 

non-Hispanic, compared to 21 percent for all spouses. 

All spouses who receive a CAA have been required to have a high school diploma or GED 

credential. About one-third (35 percent) had a high school diploma as their highest education level 

attained, while an almost comparable share (33 percent) had some college but no diploma or degree 

(Table IV.5). More than half (54 percent) of spouses with Marine sponsors and 41 percent of 

spouses with Navy sponsors had a high school diploma as their highest education level, whereas 

these statistics for spouses with Air Force and Army sponsors were 29 and 25 percent, respectively. 

Depending on the branch of service, the percentage of spouses with a GED as the highest level of 

education ranged from about 3 to about 7 percent. 

Spouses with officer sponsors were more likely than spouses with enlisted sponsors to have a 

bachelor’s degree (Table IV.6). Thirty-six percent of spouses with a junior officer (O1 to O3) as a 

sponsor, and 37 percent of those with a more senior officer as a sponsor, had a bachelor’s degree or 

equivalent when they applied for a CAA, compared to 5 percent of those with a sponsor of rank E1 

to E4. For both the spouses’ education levels and the percentage of spouses with children, the 

differences across the rank subgroups might depend, in part, on the difference in average ages of the 

spouses in the subgroups. Other unknown factors might be important as well. 

3. Prior Employment Experiences of CAA Participants 

The CAA program did not impose any eligibility requirements related to spouses’ prior 

employment experiences. However, site staff were instructed to collect information about different 

facets of each spouse’s employment experience at intake (the time of application for a CAA). In 

Tables IV.7 and IV.8, this information is reported for three sets of spouses. The first panel of these 

two tables presents information for all spouses about whether they were currently employed, 

formerly employed, or had never been employed. The second panel presents information for 

spouses who, at the time of intake, were working or had previously worked. For these spouses, 

information was to be gathered about the occupation, the wage (or earnings) rate at the current or 

most recent job, and the hours worked per week. The third panel presents information for spouses 

who had previously worked but who were not currently working. For them, additional information 

38 The data tool requested separate information about a spouse’s race and his or her ethnicity (Hispanic status). As 

explained in a note to the table, information about spouses’ race and ethnicity are combined in the table because of 

problems in the reporting of the data. 

44 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

Table IV.7 Labor Market History of CAA Recipients, by Military Branch of Sponsor (In Percentages 

Unless Stated Otherwise) 

Characteristic 

All 

Spouses Air Force Army Marines Navy 

All Recipients 

Employment Status at Intake 

Employeda 

Not currently employed but had 

previous employment 

Not currently or previously employed 

Missing 

28.9 

28.1 

21.9 

21.0 

44.6 

16.9 

34.0 

4.6 

32.2 

47.9 

9.9 

10.0 

27.6 

4.7 

65.6 

2.2 

15.9 

17.5 

6.7 

59.9 

Sample Size 2,630 368 1,117 450 690 

Recipients with a Current or Former Job 

Occupationb 

Office and Administrative Support 18.2 8.9 21.9 2.8 22.1 

Sales and Related 10.3 4.0 12.3 1.4 14.7 

Education, Training, and Library 5.8 5.3 6.5 0.7 6.9 

Food Preparation and Serving Related 5.1 1.8 6.3 0.0 6.9 

Personal Care and Service 4.5 2.7 5.6 0.7 4.3 

Health Care Support 4.3 2.2 4.9 0.7 6.1 

Management 4.1 3.5 4.6 0.0 5.6 

Health Care Practitioners and 

Technical 3.4 3.1 3.1 0.7 6.5 

Business and Financial Operations 2.9 1.8 3.2 0.0 4.8 

Other 9.7 5.3 12.2 0.7 10.0 

Missing 31.8 61.5 19.4 92.4 12.1 

Wage Per Hour 

$7.00 or less 17.1 10.6 23.0 4.9 8.2 

$7.01 to $10.00 30.8 36.7 28.2 31.3 35.1 

$10.01 to $15.00 24.5 15.9 24.3 34.0 27.7 

$15.01 or more 15.3 11.5 14.0 20.1 21.2 

Missing 12.3 25.2 10.6 9.7 7.8 

Average wage per hourc 10.74 10.16 10.18 12.32 12.28 

Hours Worked Per Week 

20 or fewer 19.1 11.1 20.8 26.4 16.0 

More than 20, but no more than 30 14.8 9.7 16.9 18.1 10.0 

More than 30, but less than 40 7.2 8.4 7.6 6.3 4.3 

40 40.7 30.5 43.5 33.3 45.0 

More than 40 3.6 3.5 4.3 3.5 1.3 

Missing 14.6 36.7 7.0 12.5 23.4 

Average hours per weekc 32.6 34.0 32.6 29.7 33.1 

Sample Size 1,499 226 895 144 231 

Recipients Not Currently Employed, but Had Previously Been Employed 

Reason No Longer Employed 

Quit because of PCS move 32.6 40.3 34.2 28.6 22.3 

Quit for other reason 23.8 11.3 22.8 4.8 38.0 

Health problems or pregnancy prevent 

working 7.2 8.1 7.1 0.0 8.3 

Temporary/contract work ended 6.4 3.2 6.7 4.8 6.6 

Laid off 5.6 3.2 3.7 0.0 15.7 

Child care issues prevent working 5.6 4.8 6.9 0.0 0.8 

Otherd 3.4 0.0 3.7 0.0 4.1 

Missing 15.6 29.0 14.8 61.9 4.1 

45 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

Table IV.7 (continued) 

Characteristic 

All 

Spouses Air Force Army Marines Navy 

Months Since Most Recent Previous 

Employmente 

3 months or less 

More than 3 months but no more than 

1 year 

More than 1 year but no more than 2 

years 

More than 2 years but no more than 5 

years 

More than 5 years 

Missing 

Average time since last employmentc 

(months) 

14.8 

25.6 

13.4 

14.5 

10.2 

21.7 

24.6 

4.8 

24.2 

9.7 

16.1 

6.5 

38.7 

25.8 

16.1 

24.7 

12.7 

15.1 

10.1 

21.3 

24.7 

14.3 

28.6 

23.8 

4.8 

0.0 

28.6 

12.3 

14.1 

29.8 

16.5 

12.4 

14.1 

13.2 

25.6 

UI Status at Intake 

UI claimant 

UI exhaustee 

Neither claimant nor exhaustee 

Missing 

3.7 

1.9 

56.6 

37.9 

1.6 

1.6 

41.9 

54.8 

4.5 

2.2 

50.7 

42.6 

0.0 

0.0 

38.1 

61.9 

1.7 

0.8 

93.4 

4.1 

Sample Size 739 62 535 21 121 

Source: Individual-level data on clients provided by Military Spouse CAA Demonstration grantees. 

Notes: Each site that issued CAAs to military spouses after mid-July 2008 provided an extract of its 

database between February 10 and March 6, 2009, for this analysis. Spouses from Maine, one 

of the eight CAA grantees, are not included in this analysis because Maine did not issue new 

CAAs after mid-July 2008. 

In the top panel of the table, the sum of the sample sizes in the columns for the four branches 

of military service is four spouses fewer than the sample size reported in the “All Spouses” 

column because information on the branch of service of the sponsors is missing for four 

spouses. For a similar reason, the middle panel in the table shows a slight discrepancy 

between the sample size in the “All Spouses” column and the sum of the sample sizes in the 

columns for the four branches of military service. 

a The data tool is designed to distinguish between an employment status at intake of “Employed” and 

“Employed, but received notice of termination of employment or military separation.” These categories 

were combined because few spouses were reported as having the latter employment status. 

b The data tool is designed to collect detailed O*Net information on occupations. The O*Net classification 

scheme uses 23 major groups to categorize occupations. The detailed codes were combined into the 

major groups. Major groups that were infrequently used were combined into the “other” category. 

c This is calculated for spouses with nonmissing information for this data item. 

d The data tool distinguished between “fired,” “does not want to work anymore,” and an other/specify 

category. These categories have been combined because the first two were infrequently used. 

e The calculation of the months since most recent employment uses the enrollment date as the start date. 

Appendix A describes the construction of the enrollment date in more detail. For a few spouses, the 

number of months since most recent employment is calculated to be negative; these values have been set 

to 1 day. 

CAA = Career Advancement Account. 

PCS = Permanent Change of Station. 

UI = unemployment insurance. 

46 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

Table IV.8 Labor Market History of CAA Recipients, by Military Rank of Sponsor (In Percentages 

Unless Stated Otherwise) 

All E1 to E6 to O1 to O4 to 

Characteristic Spouses E4 E5 E9 O3 O10 Other 

All Recipients 

Employment Status at Intake 

Employeda

 28.9 25.8 29.6 31.1 30.5 22.2 32.3 

Not currently employed but had 

previous employment 28.1 23.5 25.3 32.3 31.5 33.3 29.0 

Not currently or previously employed 21.9 28.4 24.4 16.0 19.8 22.2 16.1 

Missing 21.0 22.3 20.7 20.6 18.3 22.2 22.6 

Sample Size 2,630 753 594 943 197 81 62 

Recipients with a Current or Former Job 

Occupationb 

Office and Administrative Support 18.2 17.0 18.5 18.9 18.9 15.6 15.8 

Sales and Related 10.3 11.9 10.8 11.0 4.1 6.7 5.3 

Education, Training, and Library 5.8 2.7 4.3 6.4 10.7 24.4 2.6 

Food Preparation and Serving Related 5.1 6.5 5.2 4.7 4.9 2.2 0.0 

Personal Care and Service 4.5 6.2 5.2 4.0 0.8 0.0 5.3 

Health Care Support 4.3 3.8 4.9 5.0 1.6 2.2 2.6 

Management 4.1 1.6 2.8 5.5 7.4 4.4 7.9 

Health Care Practitioners and 

Technical 3.4 2.4 3.1 4.0 4.9 2.2 2.6 

Business and Financial Operations 2.9 0.8 0.9 4.5 4.9 6.7 5.3 

Other 9.7 7.3 13.2 8.5 9.0 15.6 15.8 

Missing 31.8 39.9 31.1 27.4 32.8 20.0 36.8 

Wage Per Hour 

$7.00 or less 17.1 21.8 16.0 16.4 13.9 6.7 13.2 

$7.01 to $10.00 30.8 39.6 28.6 27.9 27.1 24.4 26.3 

$10.01 to $15.00 24.5 21.0 28.6 24.8 22.1 22.2 29.0 

$15.01 or more 15.3 8.6 12.0 17.7 26.2 28.9 21.1 

Missing 12.3 8.9 14.8 13.2 10.7 17.8 10.5 

Average wage per hourc 10.74 9.17 10.77 11.07 12.42 14.55 11.43 

Hours Worked Per Week 

20 or fewer 19.1 19.7 19.7 17.9 22.1 17.8 18.4 

More than 20, but no more than 30 14.8 21.3 13.5 13.7 12.3 4.4 0.0 

More than 30, but less than 40 7.2 9.4 5.5 6.2 5.7 6.7 21.1 

40 40.7 33.2 41.9 43.8 40.2 48.9 47.4 

More than 40 3.6 3.2 3.4 4.4 2.5 2.2 2.6 

Missing 14.6 13.2 16.0 14.1 17.2 20.0 10.5 

Average hours per weekc

 32.6 31.5 32.5 33.3 31.3 33.0 34.3 

Sample Size 1,499 371 325 598 122 45 38 

Recipients Not Currently Employed, but Had Previously Been Employed 

Reason No Longer Employed 

Quit because of PCS move 32.6 38.4 30.0 27.9 46.8 37.0 22.2 

Quit for other reason 23.8 22.6 22.0 23.6 27.4 29.6 33.3 

Health problems or pregnancy 

prevent working 7.2 8.5 8.0 6.9 6.5 0.0 5.6 

Temporary/contract work ended 6.4 4.0 7.3 8.5 1.6 7.4 0.0 

Laid off 5.6 4.0 6.7 6.6 1.6 3.7 11.1 

Child care issues prevent working 5.6 6.2 6.7 4.9 1.6 3.7 16.7 

Otherd

 3.4 2.3 2.7 5.3 1.6 0.0 0.0 

Missing 15.6 14.1 16.7 16.4 12.9 18.5 11.1 

47 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

Table IV.8 (continued) 

All E1 to E6 to O1 to O4 to 

Characteristic Spouses E4 E5 E9 O3 O10 Other 

Months Since Most Recent Previous 

Employmente 

3 months or less 14.7 19.2 12.7 14.1 11.3 11.1 16.7 

More than 3 months but no more 

than 1 year 25.6 35.0 28.0 19.0 27.4 22.2 22.2 

More than 1 year but no more than 2 

years 13.4 16.4 14.0 12.8 9.7 14.8 0.0 

More than 2 years but no more than 

5 years 14.5 9.0 16.0 18.4 14.5 0.0 11.1 

More than 5 years 10.2 2.3 6.7 14.1 8.1 25.9 33.3 

Missing 21.7 18.1 22.7 21.6 29.0 25.9 16.7 

Average time since last employmentc 

(months) 24.6 12.9 21.2 30.6 21.2 44.7 54.1 

UI Status at Intake 

UI claimant 3.7 1.7 4.7 3.6 3.2 3.7 16.7 

UI exhaustee 1.9 1.1 4.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Neither claimant nor exhaustee 56.6 61.0 55.3 54.4 67.7 59.3 16.7 

Missing 37.9 36.2 36.0 40.0 29.0 37.0 66.7 

Sample Size 739 177 150 305 62 27 18 

Source: Individual-level data on clients provided by Military Spouse CAA Demonstration grantees. 

Notes: Each site that issued CAAs to military spouses after mid-July 2008 provided an extract of its 

database between February 10 and March 6, 2009, for this analysis. Spouses from Maine, one 

of the eight CAA grantees, are not included in this analysis because Maine did not issue new 

CAAs after mid-July 2008. 

a The data tool is designed to distinguish between an employment status at intake of “Employed” and 

“Employed, but received notice of termination of employment or military separation.” These categories 

were combined because few spouses were reported as having the latter employment status. 

b The data tool is designed to collect detailed O*Net information on occupations. The O*Net classification 

scheme uses 23 major groups to categorize occupations. The detailed codes were combined into the 

major groups. Major groups that were infrequently used were combined into the “other” category. 

c This is calculated for spouses with nonmissing information for this data item. 

d The data tool distinguished between “fired,” “does not want to work anymore,” and an other/specify 

category. These categories have been combined because the first two were infrequently used. 

e The calculation of the months since most recent employment uses the enrollment date as the start date. 

Appendix A describes the construction of the enrollment date in more detail. For a few spouses, the 

number of months since most recent employment is calculated to be negative; these values have been set 

to 1 day. 

CAA = Career Advancement Account. 

PCS = Permanent Change of Station. 

UI = unemployment insurance. 

is reported about the reason for the job separation from the most recent job, the length of time that 

had passed since that job, and whether or not a spouse was collecting, or had previously collected, 

unemployment insurance (UI) benefits. 

However, the discussion about spouses’ work experiences provides only a brief overview of the 

patterns in the data, without delving into many of the details or precise statistics, because all facets 

48 
 

 

 

 

 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

of this topic are plagued by high rates of missing information (Tables IV.7 and IV.8).39 

Furthermore, the prevalence of missing data varies considerably by branch of service (Table IV.7).40 

Differences across branches of service in the comprehensiveness of the data are likely to arise 

due to differences across specific military bases in the processes for data collection and data entry. 

Two common reasons heard from site staff for the missing information on spouses’ employment 

histories were that (1) information was not initially collected from the spouses; and (2) the data entry 

process, particularly for occupation code, was time-consuming and inefficient. Given the high rates 

of missing data and the patterns in the employment status of spouses, there are few spouses for 

some military branch subgroups in the third panel of the table. 

Unlike the wide variation across branches of service in the prevalence of missing data, however, 

the prevalence of missing data for the subgroups based on the sponsors’ ranks is more uniform 

(Table IV.8). As Table IV.7 shows, for example, the percentage of spouses with missing data on 

their employment status at intake ranged from 2 percent for the Marines to 60 percent for the Navy. 

In contrast, as Table IV.8 shows, the percentages range from 18 percent for spouses with sponsors 

ranked O1 to O3 to 23 percent for spouses with sponsors of an “other” rank (that is, not enlisted or 

an officer). This pattern occurs because the rates of missing data depend heavily on the base in 

which the information was to be collected, and not on the rank of the sponsor. For example, if 

California had a high rate of missing data for a particular employment characteristic, then this 

information was missing at a high rate for all rank subgroups because—overall—California is a large 

portion of the sample. Alternatively, if California had a low rate of missing information for a data 

item, then the rate of missing data for each rank subgroup was more likely to be low. 

Overall, despite the limitations in the information in these tables, some interesting patterns 

emerge (Table IV.7). Among all spouses with nonmissing information about the employment status 

at intake, about equal portions (about 28 percent of all spouses) were currently working and were 

not working but had previously worked. A somewhat smaller portion (22 percent of all spouses) 

had never worked. If these statistics are adjusted for the percentage of spouses with missing 

information, then the percentages of spouses who are currently employed, formerly employed, and 

had never been employed are 37, 36, and 28 percent, respectively. 

Spouses with Air Force sponsors were the most likely to have been currently working at the 

time of intake. Spouses with Army sponsors were more likely than those with sponsors in other 

branches of service to have been previously but not currently employed, and about two-thirds of 

39 For example, 21 percent of spouses have missing information on their employment status. Among spouses with 

a current or former job, occupation information is missing for almost one-third of spouses (32 percent), and wage and 

hour information is missing for between 12 and 15 percent. For those with a former job but no current job, information 

on the reasons for, and time since, the job separation is missing for 16 and 22 percent, respectively. In addition, 

information about the spouse’s UI status at the time of intake is missing for more than one-third (38 percent) of 

formerly employed spouses. 

40 For example, spouses’ employment statuses are missing for 2 percent of spouses with Marine sponsors and 60 

percent of spouses with Navy sponsors. Among spouses with a current or former job, however, an opposite pattern 

exists: 92 percent of spouses with Marine sponsors and 12 percent of spouses with Navy sponsors are missing 

occupation information. 

49 
MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

spouses with Marine sponsors had never worked. It is possible that this finding arises because, 

compared to spouses with sponsors from other branches, Marine spouses are younger on average. 

Among spouses with a current or former job, the two most common occupations were office 

and administrative support and sales and related occupations (Table IV.7). These occupations were 

common regardless of the branch of service of the spouses’ sponsor. Other common occupations 

were education, training, and library occupations; and food preparation and serving occupations. 

Among spouses who had a current or former job and who had nonmissing information, the 

average wage per hour and hours worked per week were $10.74 and 33 hours, respectively (Table 

IV.7). Spouses with sponsors in the Marines and Navy had higher wages (about $12.30 per hour) 

compared to spouses with sponsors in the Air Force or Army (about $10.17 per hour). This 

variation in wages across branches of service might depend on the cost of living in the area in which 

the spouse lives, as well as the spouse’s education, prior employment experiences, job opportunities 

on or near the military base, and other factors. About 41 percent of all spouses with a current or 

former job and 49 percent of those with nonmissing information (not shown) worked 40 hours per 

week. 

Thirty-three percent of spouses who were not employed at the time of intake but who had a 

previous job (Table IV.7) reported that they were no longer employed because they quit due to a 

permanent change of station (PCS) move. After adjusting for spouses with missing information 

about the job separation reason, the rate is 39 percent (not shown). It also was common for spouses 

to report that they quit for another reason. (Details of these reasons for spouses having quit their 

jobs are not available.) These reasons for leaving the prior job were the most common ones, 

regardless of the sponsor’s branch of service. The average time without a job for formerly employed 

spouses was a little longer than two years (25 months) among spouses with nonmissing information. 

This also was the case for spouses with Air Force, Army, and Navy sponsors. The average for 

spouses with Marine sponsors was about one year (12 months), although this average is based on 

few spouses. 

Although information about spouses’ UI status at intake is missing for 38 percent of spouses 

who had a former but no current job, the data show that few spouses were collecting or had 

exhausted UI benefits (Table IV.7). This is the case regardless of the branch of service. 

Information is not available on why most of these spouses were not currently collecting or had not 

previously collected UI benefits. Although quitting one’s job is a common reason across states for 

disqualification for benefits, some states do not disqualify someone if he or she moves to follow a 

spouse who has relocated due to a job. 

Examining the employment experiences of spouses across subgroups based on the rank of the 

spouse’s sponsor leads to broad conclusions similar to those drawn from the full sample of spouses 

and from the subgroups by branch of service (Table IV.8). Themes that emerge based on these data 

are that (1) spouses with junior enlisted sponsors (E1 to E4) are less likely to have ever worked than 

are spouses with higher-ranking sponsors, and spouses with senior enlisted sponsors (E6 or higher) 

are the most likely to ever have worked; (2) spouses with sponsors who are officers are more likely 

to have or have had a job in an education, training, or library occupation; (3) currently or formerly 

employed spouses with sponsors of higher rank had higher wages, on average; and (4) formerly 

50 
 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

employed spouses with sponsors of lower enlisted or officer ranks (E1 to E4 and O1 to O3) were 

more likely to report having left their prior jobs due to a PCS.41 

41 The data also show that the length of time since last employment for formerly employed spouses with highranking officer sponsors (O4 to O10) was much longer than for spouses with sponsors of lower rank; however, this 

statistic should be treated especially cautiously since it is based on very few spouses. 

51 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

V. SPOUSES’ CAA ELIGIBILITY AND PLANS 

The demonstration intended that spouses would self-manage how they used their CAAs. 

However, site staff were responsible for ensuring that spouses who received CAAs were eligible for 

the funding on the basis of their plans for using it. The main requirement was that the spouses must 

use their CAAs to pursue education and training programs, and, ultimately, careers, in nationally 

recognized high-growth and high-demand fields. Furthermore, staff had to ensure that other 

conditions for eligibility, such as the spouses’ relationship to the military through their sponsors, 

were met before a CAA was awarded. 

This chapter explores two aspects of spouses’ involvement in the CAA program: (1) the 

process for determining their eligibility, and (2) the types of education or training programs that 

spouses planned to participate in.42 Section A explains the key steps and dates in the eligibility 

determination process, then presents data on the speed at which spouses moved through these 

steps. Section B presents information about spouses’ CAA plans, including the credentials they are 

planning to obtain and the characteristics of the training and education programs for those who 

planned to attend a program. As explained in Chapter I, the report does not examine spouses’ 

outcomes after their initial CAA plans, because most spouses in the analysis data file were still 

involved in their programs when the data became available for analysis.43 

Key Findings About Spouses’ CAA Eligibility and Plans: 

•	 Many spouses moved quickly through the steps in the CAA application process to determine 

their eligibility for a CAA. Among spouses with nonmissing information, the average number 

of days between the intake date and the final eligibility determination was about seven. 

•	 Spouses with Marine sponsors achieved eligibility especially quickly compared to spouses 

with sponsors from another branch of service, while the rank of the sponsor of a spouse 

does not seem to have had a strong influence on the speed at which the CAA application was 

processed. 

•	 Spouses typically planned to use their CAA for an Associate of Arts (AA), Associate of Science 

(AS), or occupational skills certificate or credential. Planned careers in the health care and 

education fields were common. 

•	 Among spouses who planned to participate in an education or training program, about twofifths (42 percent) planned to use their CAAs to attend a community college. About onequarter were expecting to receive their instruction through distance (Internet) learning, and 

about 55 percent planned to have their program last more than one year. 

•	 Spouses with Air Force sponsors were more likely than other spouses to plan to attend a 

four-year university, to attend the program in person, and to attend longer. Marine spouses 

were more likely to plan to participate in a program offered from a propriety school and as 

distance learning, whereas Army and Navy spouses were more likely to plan to attend a 

community college. Spouses of officers were more likely to plan to attend a four-year 

university, but the rank of the sponsor does not seem to have a strong relationship to the 

delivery method or length of the planned program. 

42 Chapter IV describes the individual-level data used in this chapter, including the methods used for analysis and 

the data’s limitations. 

43 An exception is that Appendix C presents information from two sites (Colorado and Florida-Jacksonville) about 

spouses’ receipt of WIA-funded services. 

53 
 

	 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

A.	 Overview of the Process and the Speed at Which Spouses Achieved CAA 

Eligibility 

This section presents information about the pace at which spouses progressed through the 

steps to determine eligibility for a CAA and start using their CAA funds for training. The eligibility 

determination process is complex, with several steps to be completed and dates that sites record to 

keep track of spouses’ progress through the steps. Therefore, before statistics based on the 

individual-level data are presented, this section gives an overview of the process and an explanation 

of the different dates. 

1. Key Steps and Dates in the CAA Eligibility Determination Process 

As described in detail in the implementation report, spouses had to follow certain steps before 

they could receive education and training funds through this demonstration.44,45 First, they had to 

attend an orientation session to learn about the demonstration and the process for opening an 

account. Sites held these sessions so that spouses could get answers to questions and, in some cases, 

speak individually with military or workforce demonstration staff. Orientations were usually held at 

the military bases and involved staff from both the base and the One-Stop Career Center. The 

orientation was typically, but not always, a formal group presentation that focused on the 

demonstration’s guidelines by reviewing who could participate, what career fields and training 

programs were eligible, and how to progress through the enrollment process. In a few sites, 

representatives from education institutions also attended group orientations. At some sites, 

orientations could also serve as the beginning step in getting a CAA approved, though it was unlikely 

that all the required steps could be completed to fully open an account. Five demonstration sites 

had potential participants begin the application process immediately following orientation. 

DOL and DoD developed a standardized process form that guided spouses through the steps 

to enroll in the demonstration and open a CAA. The form required that participants provide 

identifying information about themselves and their sponsors. It also required that they identify their 

intended education plan, including career goal, intended program of study, and intended education 

institution. The date on which the CAA applicants signed and submitted the process form is 

referred to as the intake date. The intake date is missing in the data for 15 percent of the sample 

(Table B.2 in Appendix B.) 

The process form also included a section to verify that the applicant met the eligibility 

requirements based on his or her relationship with the sponsor and the military. This portion of the 

form had space for the signatures of the voluntary education officer and the wing/base/garrison 

commander to indicate that the applicant met the military eligibility criteria for a CAA. Base 

leadership could designate the signature authority for military verification to other people. For this 

analysis, the date on which a spouse is determined to have met the eligibility criteria related to his or 

her relationship with the military is referred to as the date of military eligibility determination. 

44 Throughout this chapter, all findings from the implementation study are from Part I. 

45 These steps are presented in a stylized manner here. The implementation report described the process in greater 

detail, including how some sites deviated from this stylized sequence of steps. 

54 
 

 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

Next, applicants often met with workforce partner staff to review the process form and 

facilitated the completion of the eligibility determination process. When the One-Stop Career 

Center received the military-approved process form from the applicant or military center, it was to 

fill in information on the servicing One-Stop Career Center, note whether a CAA was awarded and, 

if so, for what amount, and fax the completed form to the education support office for DoD, 

known as Defense Activity for Non-Traditional Education Support (DANTES). In determining the 

participant’s eligibility, One-Stop Career Center staff reviewed the participant’s selected career goal, 

education goal, and training program as listed on the form to ensure that they were appropriate to 

the demonstration and for the individual. As discussed in the implementation report, One-Stop 

Career Centers in at least seven sites required that applicants submit an education plan in addition to 

what they listed on the process form. While the content of the requested education plan varied 

across sites, it often included the selected education or training program; documentation that the 

participant applied to, or was accepted by, the education institution; the program start date; the 

anticipated program end date; and the total program cost. 

In all sites, the workforce partner was responsible for officially enrolling participants in the 

demonstration, although the final signature authority to approve the CAA varied across sites. Many 

sites gave this authority to the frontline staff who reviewed participants’ eligibility, but some sites 

required approval from their supervisors and/or the One-Stop Career Center director. For this 

analysis, the date on which a spouse is determined to have met all the eligibility criteria from both 

the military perspective and the workforce investment system perspective is referred to as the date 

of final eligibility determination. 

While not officially a part of the CAA application process, another important date in the early 

phase of spouses’ participation in the CAA program is when the spouse begins his or her training or 

education program. For simplicity, and to measure the two-year time window for which a spouse is 

eligible for a CAA, DOL has referred to this date as the CAA start date. 

When reviewing the information presented in the next section, it will be important to recognize 

that the CAA start date is missing for about one-third (34 percent) of spouses in the analysis sample. 

(See Tables B.2 and B.3 in Appendix B.) According to site staff, a common reason that this date is 

missing is because, when the One-Stop Career Center staff entered data into the data tool, the staff 

did not routinely know the date when a spouse started or would start his or her training program. 

Another reason, described in the implementation study report, pertains to how sites defined when a 

CAA was officially open. At the two sites in California, for example, participants were not required 

to complete the application or enrollment process for their selected program in order to complete 

the CAA application approval process, although they were asked to select a career field and available 

education or training program. Thus, these sites did not expect all participants who completed the 

process actually to follow through with enrolling in an education or training program and opening 

an account.46 Thus, it is likely that some of the spouses with missing CAA start dates in the analysis 

file did not, in fact, begin participation in a training or education program. 

46 The implementation study report describes how these sites instituted an expiration date for approved CAAs if 

spouses did not enroll in an education or training program, so that funds could be de-obligated if the spouse was not 

likely to use them. Other sites, such as Georgia and Hawaii, required a commitment by the spouse to enroll in education 

or training before the CAA application was approved, such as documentation of their acceptance into and enrollment in 

their selected education or training program or the establishment of a payment system with the institution. 

55 
 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

2. Speed at Which Spouses Attained CAA Eligibility and Began Using Their CAA 

Many spouses moved quickly through the steps in the CAA application process (Table V.1). 

Across all branches of military service, half of the spouses in the analysis sample (50 percent) were 

able to complete intake (submit their process form) on the same day they attended an orientation 

session. Furthermore, 89 percent of spouses were determined to have met the military eligibility 

criteria on the same day they completed the process form. Almost half (47 percent) of spouses were 

determined to have met all eligibility criteria on the same day they met the military eligibility criteria, 

although this information is missing for 10 percent of spouses. After adjusting for the missing data, 

the percentage of spouses who had the military and final eligibility determinations on the same day 

was 52 percent. Although many spouses proceeded quickly through these different steps, the 

average number of days between steps is influenced by the portion of spouses who took a long time 

to do so. For example, 40 percent of spouses had 15 or more days between their orientation and 

intake dates, which means that the average number of days between these steps for all spouses (with 

nonmissing dates) is 22. The average number of days between the intake date and the military 

eligibility determination date is 3, while the average between the military eligibility determination 

date and the final eligibility determination date is 17. The data do not indicate why some spouses 

took longer than others to proceed through these steps. However, during evaluation team site visits, 

site staff reported there was considerable variation in the amount of time that spouses needed to 

decide upon an occupation or program. Operational issues, such as the need to get the appropriate 

documentation from the institution offering the program, or backlogs in processing CAA 

applications, also could influence this length of time. 

The time period between when a spouse achieved final eligibility and when he or she began the 

education or training program depended in large part on when the institution that offered the 

chosen program had scheduled the program to start. However, about one-third (37 percent) of the 

spouses were recorded in the Access data tool as having started the education or training program 

(the “CAA start date”) on the same day that final eligibility was determined. Qualitative information 

collected during the implementation study site visits supports the view that some of these spouses 

were already enrolled in their programs when they applied for the CAA. However, the number of 

days between the final eligibility determination date and the CAA start date cannot be calculated for 

about one-third (34 percent) of spouses, in large part because the CAA start date is missing for many 

spouses. After adjusting for the missing data, the percentage who were reported as having had their 

CAA start date on the same day as their final eligibility date is 56 percent (not shown). 

56 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

Table V.1 Number of Days Between CAA-Related Events, by Military Branch of Sponsor (In 

Percentages Unless Stated Otherwise) 

Characteristics All Spouses Air Force Army Marines Navy 

Number of Days After the Orientation 

That the Intake Date Occurreda 

0 daysb 49.9 21.2 40.8 96.8 45.8 

1 to 14 days 9.9 17.1 8.0 1.8 24.1 

15 or more days 40.2 61.7 51.1 1.4 30.0 

Average number of daysb

 22.0 44.3 23.3 1.1 20.7 

Number of Days After the Intake Date 

That the Military Eligibility Determination 

Occurreda 

0 daysb

 89.4 99.4 89.7 99.1 48.8 

1 to 14 days 7.7 0.6 5.4 0.2 48.8 

15 or more days 2.9 0.0 5.0 0.7 2.5 

Average number of daysb

 2.7 0.1 4.2 0.5 4.7 

Number of Days After the Military 

Eligibility Determination That the Final 

Eligibility Determination Occurreda 

0 daysb 47.0 26.6 23.6 84.0 71.5 

1 to 14 days 13.7 19.0 23.3 2.0 3.0 

15 to 30 days 14.7 17.7 26.0 0.2 4.3 

31 or more days 14.6 35.1 19.1 0.7 5.5 

Missing 10.0 1.6 8.1 13.1 15.6 

Average number of daysb

 16.9 42.1 20.3 1.0 6.0 

Number of Days After the Final Eligibility 

Determination That the CAA Start Date 

Occurreda 

0 daysb 36.8 49.5 28.3 2.0 66.7 

1 to 14 days 11.1 16.3 17.5 1.1 4.5 

15 to 30 days 8.5 13.6 14.0 0.2 2.5 

31 or more days 9.7 13.9 15.5 0.7 4.1 

Missing 33.9 6.8 24.7 96.0 22.3 

Average number of daysb

 13.9 13.8 20.3 12.7 3.9 

Number of Days After the Intake Date 

That the Final Eligibility Determination 

Occurreda 

0 daysb 58.5 76.9 70.2 84.2 12.9 

1 to 14 days 8.8 6.8 9.1 0.9 14.5 

15 to 30 days 2.5 6.8 3.6 0.0 0.1 

31 or more days 4.9 7.9 8.1 0.0 1.2 

Missing 25.4 1.6 9.0 14.9 71.3 

Average number of daysb

 6.9 9.4 8.7 0.1 6.0 

Number of Days After the Intake Date 

That the CAA Start Date Occurreda 

0 daysb

 14.3 28.5 20.2 0.7 5.9 

1 to 14 days 14.1 22.8 16.0 1.1 14.9 

15 to 30 days 9.5 20.9 15.2 0.2 0.3 

31 or more days 13.3 20.9 23.0 0.7 1.7 

Missing 48.9 6.8 25.5 97.3 77.1 

Average number of daysb

 25.6 23.5 29.7 19.0 9.3 

Sample Size 2,630 368 1,117 450 691 

Source: Individual-level data on clients provided by Military Spouse CAA Demonstration grantees. 

57 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

Table V.1 (continued) 

Notes: Each site that issued CAAs to military spouses after mid-July 2008 provided an extract of its 

database between February 10 and March 6, 2009, for this analysis. Spouses from Maine, one 

of the eight CAA grantees, are not included in this analysis because Maine did not issue new 

CAAs after mid-July 2008. 

The sum of the sample sizes in the columns for the four branches of military service is four 

spouses fewer than the sample size reported in the “All Spouses” column because information 

on the branch of service of the sponsors is missing for four spouses. 

a

Some spouses have complete information on one of the two events, but not the other. It cannot be 

determined from the data files why a date for an event is missing. One possibility is that an event is 

missing due to gaps in data entry. Another is that the data are “right-censored.” For example, a spouse 

could have gone through an orientation and eligibility determination process in December 2008 but not 

enrolled in training (and started the CAA) until April 2009. The data, which were provided in February or 

March 2009, would show the orientation and eligibility determination dates, but the CAA start date would 

not be entered until April 2009, after the extract was provided for analysis. 

b

The Access database required the CAA-related dates to occur in a certain sequence, which would prevent 

the number of days between these dates from being negative. However, one site did not conduct the 

data entry using the standard data entry screens. Therefore, in some instances, the number of days 

between these dates is negative. These spouses are included in the row reporting statistics on the 

percentage of spouses with “0 days” between these two events. Furthermore, the number of days for 

these spouses is included as a zero in the calculation for the average number of days between these two 

events. 

CAA = Career Advancement Account. 

Overall, 59 percent of spouses in the analysis sample received their final eligibility determination 

on the same day as their intake date.47 Adjusting the length of time between these two dates by the 

25 percent of spouses in the analysis sample for whom this length could not be calculated indicates 

that 78 percent of spouses with nonmissing information had these dates on the same day. The 

application process, from the intake date to the final eligibility determination, took between 1 and 14 

days for 9 percent of spouses (or, 12 percent after adjusting for the percentage of spouses with 

missing information); the process was longer for small percentages of other spouses, including 5 

percent of spouses (or, 7 percent after adjusting for missing data) for whom the process took 31 

days or more. The data do not indicate why the process took longer for some spouses than others, 

although possible reasons include extra time that some spouses needed to develop and finalize their 

education plans, spouses’ uncertainty about whether they wanted to proceed with education or 

training after they submitted their process forms, or a backlog by site staff in processing the forms. 

For spouses for whom the time between the intake date and the final eligibility date could be 

calculated, the average length of time was seven days. This statistic is consistent with the qualitative 

information reported in the implementation report that the time for site staff and spouses to 

complete the full approval process varied from one day to several weeks or more. Some sites 

developed an approval process in which, once potential participants had the required documents, 

they could receive approval in one meeting. For example, at the two sites in California, participants 

47 Generally speaking, the number of days between when a spouse submits an application form (the “intake date”) 

and when he or she receives final approval for a CAA (the “final eligibility determination date”) represents the time 

when the spouse and site staff are focusing one-on-one on the spouse’s specific circumstances, to determine eligibility. 

However, as Table V.1 shows, about half of spouses submit their process forms the same day they attend an orientation 

session. So, looking at the time from the spouse’s orientation to his or her final eligibility determination would present a 

picture of the speed at which spouses attain CAAs similar to the picture based on the time from the intake date to the 

final eligibility determination. 

58 
 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

could complete the approval process during their weekly orientations (although some spouses 

attended orientation more than once, since they often did not have all the documentation completed 

at their first orientation). Other sites reported that they needed about two weeks from the time the 

process form and additional materials were submitted to the receipt of final approval. 

The quantitative data show significant differences across branches of service in the time that it 

took for spouses’ CAA applications to be approved (Table V.1).48 For example, 84 percent of 

spouses with Marine sponsors achieved final CAA eligibility the same day they submitted their 

process forms, which translates into a 99 percent rate after an adjustment is made due to missing 

data for some spouses (not shown). This contrasts with 77 and 70 percent of spouses with Air 

Force and Army sponsors, respectively, who achieved final eligibility the same day they submitted 

their process forms. (These rates adjust to 78 and 77 percent, respectively, after taking into account 

the missing data.) The percentage of spouses with Navy sponsors who achieved final eligibility the 

same day as the intake date is shown in Table V.1 as 13 percent; this percentage adjusts to 45 

percent after the missing data are taken into account. Thus, even after adjusting for missing data, 

the branches of service still varied considerably in the percentages of spouses who achieved final 

eligibility the same day they submitted their process forms. Furthermore, the branches vary in the 

average number of days between the two dates—ranging from less than one day for the Marines to 

nine days for the Air Force and Army. However, the prevalence of missing data will affect the 

average number of days between these two dates if the experiences of those with missing data are 

different from the experiences of those with nonmissing data. 

Ultimately, the differences between branches might reflect differences in the CAA-related 

procedures that the bases developed but might not necessarily be inherent in the branches 

themselves. Part I of this document discusses different procedures that bases used to process 

spouses’ CAA applications, but both the analysis in that report and the analysis here cannot provide 

guidance on whether an approach used at one base would work equally well at another base. 

Some variations across spouses with different ranks of sponsors are found in Table V.2, 

although these differences are relatively small compared to those found for subgroups by branch of 

service. For example, the percentage of spouses with sponsors from each rank subgroup who 

achieved final eligibility the same day they submitted their process form ranged from 53 percent for 

sponsors of rank O1 to O3 to 74 percent for sponsors with an “other” rank. (After adjusting for 

missing data, the range is from 68 percent for O1 to O3 sponsors to 94 percent for sponsors of an 

“other” rank [not shown]).49 While some portion of the difference in the CAA eligibility process 

could arise specifically because of the characteristics of a spouse or his or her sponsor, the 

processing of CAA applications appears to be fairly uniform regardless of the rank of the sponsor— 

at least compared to the variation across branches of military service. 

48 Chapter IV presents information about the relationship between the branches of service and the sites; typically, 

each subgroup by branch of service contained data from only a few sites out of all sites included in the demonstration. 

49 Almost all sponsors with an “other” rank are warrant officers. The small size of the group of spouses with 

sponsors of an “other” rank is likely to lead to noise in the data and statistics. If these spouses are excluded from the 

analysis, the range after adjustment for missing data is from 68 to 81 percent, for spouses with sponsors of rank E1 to 

E4. 

59 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

Table V.2 Number of Days Between CAA-Related Events, by Military Rank of Sponsor (In Percentages 

Unless Stated Otherwise) 

All O1 to O4 to 

Characteristics Spouses E1 to E4 E5 E6 to E9 O3 O10 Other 

Number of Days After the 

Orientation That the Intake Date 

Occurreda 

0 daysb 49.9 57.5 52.3 42.5 54.2 35.5 52.9 

1 to 14 days 9.9 9.4 8.2 10.6 13.3 14.5 3.9 

15 or more days 40.2 33.2 39.6 46.9 32.5 50.0 43.1 

Average number of daysb

 22.0 18.0 22.7 24.6 22.0 25.5 17.5 

Number of Days After the Intake 

Date That the Military Eligibility 

Determination Occurreda 

0 daysb 89.4 90.7 89.4 88.6 87.2 87.1 96.0 

1 to 14 days 7.7 6.3 8.0 8.3 10.4 9.7 2.0 

15 or more days 2.9 3.0 2.6 3.2 2.4 3.2 2.0 

Average number of daysb

 2.7 2.6 3.4 2.7 1.3 4.0 0.8 

Number of Days After the Military 

Eligibility Determination That the 

Final Eligibility Determination 

Occurreda 

0 daysb 47.0 51.9 51.2 40.8 46.7 48.1 40.3 

1 to 14 days 13.7 13.7 10.1 16.8 11.7 14.8 6.5 

15 to 30 days 14.7 11.7 13.8 18.1 10.7 12.3 24.2 

31 or more days 14.6 10.8 14.8 16.1 19.3 19.8 12.9 

Missing 10.0 12.0 10.1 8.2 11.7 4.9 16.1 

Average number of daysb

 16.9 13.5 17.5 17.1 25.4 23.0 14.3 

Number of Days After the Final 

Eligibility Determination That the 

CAA Start Date Occurreda 

0 daysb 36.8 34.8 38.7 35.3 45.2 49.4 22.6 

1 to 14 days 11.1 9.0 11.1 13.4 9.6 12.3 4.8 

15 to 30 days 8.5 6.6 7.7 10.5 9.6 8.6 4.8 

31 or more days 9.7 7.2 7.2 12.5 10.2 12.3 16.1 

Missing 33.9 42.4 35.2 28.3 25.4 17.3 51.6 

Average number of daysb

 13.9 11.8 11.4 16.0 12.7 15.2 33.3 

Number of Days After the Intake 

Date That the Final Eligibility 

Determination Occurreda 

0 daysb

 58.5 58.7 58.4 58.3 52.8 60.5 74.2 

1 to 14 days 8.8 7.4 9.8 9.1 12.2 7.4 1.6 

15 to 30 days 2.5 2.8 2.2 2.8 2.0 1.2 1.6 

31 or more days 4.9 3.7 4.9 4.7 10.2 7.4 1.6 

Missing 25.4 27.4 24.7 25.1 22.8 23.5 21.0 

Average number of daysb

 6.9 6.0 6.6 6.5 12.3 11.2 1.4 

Number of Days After the Intake 

Date That the CAA Start Date 

Occurreda 

0 daysb

 14.3 12.6 14.8 13.7 18.3 19.8 17.7 

1 to 14 days 14.1 12.0 16.2 14.5 15.2 18.5 4.8 

15 to 30 days 9.5 8.0 8.2 11.9 9.6 8.6 4.8 

31 or more days 13.3 10.0 11.1 15.1 20.3 18.5 17.7 

Missing 48.9 57.5 49.7 44.9 36.5 34.6 54.8 

Average number of daysb

 25.6 23.2 21.6 27.5 28.9 30.8 38.3 

60 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

Table V.2 (continued) 

Characteristics 

All 

Spouses E1 to E4 E5 E6 to E9 

O1 to 

O3 

O4 to 

O10 Other 

Sample Size 2,630 753 594 943 197 81 62 

Source: Individual-level data on clients provided by Military Spouse CAA Demonstration grantees. 

Notes: Each site that issued CAAs to military spouses after mid-July 2008 provided an extract of its 

database between February 10 and March 6, 2009, for this analysis. Spouses from Maine, one 

of the eight CAA grantees, are not included in this analysis because Maine did not issue new 

CAAs after mid-July 2008. 

a

Some spouses have complete information on one of the two events, but not the other. It cannot be 

determined from the data files why a date for an event is missing. One possibility is that an event is 

missing due to gaps in data entry. Another is that the data are “right-censored.” For example, a spouse 

could have gone through an orientation and eligibility determination process in December 2008 but not 

enrolled in training (and started the CAA) until April 2009. The data, which were provided in February or 

March 2009, would show the orientation and eligibility determination dates, but the CAA start date would 

not be entered until April 2009, after the extract was provided for analysis. 

b

The Access database required the CAA-related dates to occur in a certain sequence, which would prevent 

the number of days between these dates from being negative. However, one site did not conduct the 

data entry using the standard data entry screens. Therefore, in some instances, the number of days 

between these dates is negative. These spouses are included in the row reporting statistics on the 

percentage of spouses with “0 days” between these two events. Furthermore, the number of days for 

these spouses is included as a zero in the calculation for the average number of days between these two 

events. 

CAA = Career Advancement Account. 

B. Spouses’ Planned CAA Usage 

As discussed in Chapter I, the analysis in this report contains a description of spouses’ plans to 

use their CAAs around the time that they established eligibility for a CAA, but data are not available 

to assess the extent to which spouses followed through on their plans, completed their programs, or 

attained industry-recognized credentials, certifications, or licenses that would help them in their 

careers. In this section, the focus is on the information that is available about the plans. 

1. Planned Use of the CAA Funds and Target Credentials 

CAAs could be used for participation in an education or training program that would lead to an 

industry-recognized credential, certification, or license within two years. Spouses who did not need 

to participate in a program, but who wanted to use the CAA to pay for the attainment of the 

credential—such as to cover a fee for a test for the credential—also were eligible for CAAs. 

Consistent with what was reported in the implementation study report, almost all spouses used their 

CAAs to participate in a training or education program that would lead to a credential (Table V.3). 

Only two percent of spouses planned to use the CAA for the attainment of a credential. 

Much of the rest of the information on the characteristics of the spouses’ planned usages of the 

CAA is plagued with missing data. Since the prevalence of missing data varies considerably across 

branches of service, the discussion focuses on patterns for all spouses, but not subgroups by branch 

of service. 

61 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

Table V.3 Planned Use of CAA Funds and Target Credentials, by Military Branch of Sponsor (In 

Percentages Unless Stated Otherwise) 

All 

Characteristic Spouses Air Force Army Marines Navy 

Purpose of the CAAa 

Training/education program and credential 98.2 98.4 99.0 99.3 95.5 

Credential only 1.8 1.6 1.0 0.7 4.5 

Total Cost of Training/Education or Activity (Funded 

by All Sources) 

$1,000.00 or less 2.3 8.4 2.3 0.0 0.6 

$1,000.01 to $2,999.99 7.3 22.6 7.3 0.7 3.3 

$3,000.00 9.1 19.0 12.1 0.2 4.9 

$3,000.01 to $5,999.99 6.2 1.9 10.5 0.0 5.8 

$6,000.00 7.8 7.9 7.6 0.0 13.0 

$6,000.01 to $10,000.00 3.5 1.1 4.7 0.2 4.9 

$10,000.01 or more 5.5 1.4 11.5 0.9 0.9 

Missing 58.3 37.8 43.9 98.0 66.6 

Average cost (dollars)b

 5,738 3,214 6,819 8,539 5,218 

Projected Amount to be Funded by CAA 

$1,000.00 or less 1.6 1.6 2.7 0.0 0.9 

$1,000.01 to $2,999.99 4.8 3.8 7.5 0.7 3.6 

$3,000.00 16.3 51.4 16.6 0.4 7.5 

$3,000.01 to $5,999.99 4.8 1.1 7.8 0.0 5.1 

$6,000.00 16.6 21.2 21.6 0.9 16.5 

Missing 55.9 20.9 43.9 98.0 66.4 

Average projected amount funded by CAA (dollars)b 4,090 3,731 4,113 4,095 4,492 

Expected Degree, Certificate, Credential, or Licensec 

AA or AS diploma/degree 30.2 25.5 38.8 24.7 22.3 

BA/BS diploma/degree 10.7 12.5 12.7 5.1 10.1 

Occupational skills licensure 3.8 7.9 3.0 4.0 2.7 

Occupational skills certificate/credential 31.6 14.9 24.7 61.1 32.3 

Missing 23.8 39.1 20.9 5.1 32.6 

Target Industrye,f 

Health care 40.3 38.9 37.7 55.8 35.5 

Education 14.8 25.3 12.1 16.7 12.3 

Business administration 7.0 10.9 10.2 0.9 3.5 

Financial services 6.7 4.6 5.5 12.4 5.9 

Homeland security 3.9 3.8 5.5 4.2 1.2 

Information technology 2.9 3.3 3.2 1.6 3.2 

Human resources 2.4 2.4 2.9 1.3 2.2 

Hospitality 1.5 1.6 0.9 1.8 2.3 

Construction 1.0 3.0 0.8 0.2 0.7 

Other 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.0 0.3 

Missing 19.2 5.7 20.7 5.1 33.0 

Target Occupationd 

Health Care Practitioners and Technical 10.4 21.2 14.1 0.2 5.2 

Education, Training, and Library 9.7 23.4 12.2 0.4 4.3 

Health Care Support 8.7 11.1 16.2 0.9 0.3 

Office and Administrative Support 7.0 17.4 10.2 0.4 0.4 

Management 5.6 5.4 9.2 0.2 3.0 

Business and Financial Operations 4.7 4.3 7.1 0.2 4.1 

Other 6.2 9.5 9.7 0.0 2.7 

Missing 47.9 7.6 21.3 97.6 79.9 

Sample Size 2,630 368 1,117 450 691 

62 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

Table V.3 (continued) 

Source: Individual-level data on clients provided by Military Spouse CAA Demonstration grantees. 

Note: Each site that issued CAAs to military spouses after mid-July 2008 provided an extract of its 

database between February 10 and March 6, 2009 for this analysis. Spouses from Maine, one 

of the eight CAA grantees, are not included in this analysis because Maine did not issue new 

CAAs after mid-July 2008. 

The sum of the sample sizes in the columns for the four branches of military service is four 

spouses fewer than the sample size reported in the “All Spouses” column because information 

on the branch of service of the sponsors is missing for four spouses. 

a

The data from the sites showed six spouses as having missing information on the purpose of the CAA. 

Because they had nonmissing information about the characteristics of a training program, they were reclassified as having the purpose of the CAA as a training/education program and a credential. 

b

This is calculated for spouses with nonmissing information for this data item. 

c

These categories have been chosen to correspond with Workforce Investment Act Standardized Record 

Data (WIASRD) categories of credentials. The WIASRD categories “high school diploma/degree” and 

“individual received training, but no recognized credential received” have not been included in the table 

because CAA recipients must have a high school diploma (or an equivalent). 

d

The data tool is designed to collect detailed O*Net information on occupations. The O*Net classification 

scheme uses 23 major groups to categorize occupations. The detailed codes were combined into the 

major groups and then reviewed to determine how further to aggregate the data. 

e

Originally, DOL and DoD identified five nationally recognized high-growth and high-demand fields in 

which spouses could pursue education and training programs, and, ultimately, careers, but they 

expanded the list of fields during the demonstration. No spouses in the Access data were reported as 

having social work, one of the new fields, as a target industry. 

f

The statistics in the rows for each category of industry include all subcategories for the industry. 

AA = Associate of Arts. 

AS = Associate of Science. 

BA = Bachelor of Arts. 

BS = Bachelor of Science. 

CAA = Career Advancement Account. 

DoD = Department of Defense. 

DOL = Department of Labor. 

The total cost of the training and education program to be funded by any source—not only the 

CAA—is missing for 58 percent of spouses. Discussions with site staff about why this information 

is missing at such a high rate indicated that the staff frequently did not fill in this information 

because they did not know it. However, the projected amount of the program that was expected to 

be funded by the CAA is missing for a nearly identical percentage of spouses (56 percent). This 

information was missing for nearly all spouses with Marine sponsors and about two-thirds of 

spouses with Navy sponsors. Here also, some site staff reported that this information was missing 

because they did not know it. This might have occurred especially at sites that did not require 

spouses to have been accepted by an education or training program before a CAA plan was 

approved. 

63 
 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

Overall, 16 percent of spouses were shown as having the projected amount to be funded by the 

CAA as $3,000, and a comparable percentage (17 percent) were shown with CAA funding of 

$6,000.50 After adjusting for the presence of missing data, these percentages are 37 and 38 percent, 

respectively. However, as mentioned in the next subsection, 55 percent of spouses planned to enroll 

in education or training programs that were expected to last more than one year. Thus, the 

percentage of spouses who ultimately will use more than $3,000 could be higher than is shown in 

Table V.3. The reason for the concentration of spouses with $3,000 of CAA funding is probably 

because site staff were indicating in the data tool the amount of CAA funding available for the 

spouse in the first year of his or her participation in the CAA program, not the projected amount for 

both CAA years. 

Although many spouses are missing information about the expected credential, and their target 

industry and occupation, Table V.3 reports the information available for the full sample and by 

subgroups based on the sponsor’s branch of service. About 30 percent of spouses were expecting 

to attain an Associate of Arts (AA) or Associate of Science (AS) diploma or degree, and about the 

same percentage (32 percent) were expecting to attain an occupational skills certificate or credential. 

Less common, at 11 percent, was the attainment of a BA or BS diploma or degree. (Adjusting these 

statistics for the 24 percent of spouses with missing data indicates that 40 percent of spouses were 

aiming for an AA or AS, 41 percent were aiming for an occupational skills certificate or credential, 

and 14 percent were aiming for a BA or BS.) Although spouses were allowed to use a CAA for the 

completion of a program that, in its entirety, would take more than two years, they could only do so 

if they expected to complete the program within two years of the start of their CAA. Thus, if one 

assumes for simplicity that attainment of a BA or BS diploma or degree takes four years from start 

to finish, the spouses who expected to attain one of these types of degrees had already completed at 

least two years of their program before they received their CAA. 

Despite the prevalence of missing data about spouses’ target industries and occupations in 

which they wanted to pursue CAA-funded careers, the individual-level data support the finding in 

the implementation study and in the analysis of weekly report data in Chapter III of this report that 

planned careers in the health care and education fields were common. Forty percent of all spouses 

(which are 50 percent of those with nonmissing information) were targeting a career in the health 

care industry, while 15 percent (or 18 percent of those with nonmissing information) were targeting 

the education industry. Financial services and business administration also were common target 

industries. 

Data on spouses’ target occupations are missing for almost half of spouses (Table V.3). Some 

site staff reported that they did not record this information in the Access data tool because doing so 

was cumbersome and time-consuming. Nevertheless, the information available on spouses’ target 

occupations is consistent with that presented elsewhere. Common target occupations were in the 

health care and education fields. However, spouses also planned to train to perform other 

occupations in broad categories such as management and office and administrative support. 

Because of the high prevalence of missing data and the small sample sizes for some rank 

subgroups, care must be taken in the interpretation of patterns across rank subgroups in spouses’ 

50 It is possible to calculate the percentage of the total cost projected to be funded by the CAA. However, this 

information is not presented because of the high rate of missing data for (1) the total cost of the training or education to 

be funded by all sources, and (2) the projected amount to be funded by the CAA. 

64 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

planned uses for their CAAs. Nevertheless, a few patterns in the data are suggestive (Table V.4). 

Spouses with sponsors who are officers were somewhat more likely than spouses with enlisted-rank 

sponsors to want to use the CAA for a credential only. They also were more likely to use their CAA 

for an occupational skills licensure. These findings are consistent with the one in Chapter IV that 

spouses with officer sponsors were more likely to have their bachelor’s degrees. Furthermore, they 

were more likely to target an occupation or industry related to education. 

Table V.4 Planned Use of CAA Funds and Target Credentials, by Military Rank of Sponsor (In 

Percentages Unless Stated Otherwise) 

All E1 to E6 to O1 to O4 to 

Characteristic Spouses E4 E5 E9 O3 O10 Other 

Purpose of the CAAa 

Training/education program and credential 98.2 99.0 98.0 98.1 96.8 94.7 100.0 

Credential only 1.8 1.0 2.0 1.9 3.2 5.3 0.0 

Total Cost of Training/Education or Activity 

(Funded by All Sources) 

$1,000.00 or less 2.3 2.4 3.0 1.7 2.0 6.2 0.0 

$1,000.01 to $2,999.99 7.3 7.3 7.1 7.2 7.1 11.1 6.5 

$3,000.00 9.1 7.8 8.6 9.2 11.7 14.8 12.9 

$3,000.01 to $5,999.99 6.2 5.2 3.9 8.6 6.6 4.9 6.5 

$6,000.00 7.8 7.7 9.4 6.2 11.7 7.4 4.8 

$6,000.01 to $10,000.00 3.5 2.1 3.2 4.6 5.1 4.9 0.0 

$10,000.01 or more 5.5 5.0 5.2 6.3 7.1 1.2 1.6 

Missing 58.3 62.4 59.6 56.3 48.7 49.4 67.7 

Average cost (dollars)b

 5,738 5,767 5,573 5,946 6,279 3,969 3,902 

Projected Amount to be Funded by CAA 

$1,000.00 or less 1.6 1.9 2.0 1.0 1.5 4.9 0.0 

$1,000.01 to $2,999.99 4.8 5.0 4.7 4.9 4.1 3.7 6.5 

$3,000.00 16.3 14.7 15.5 16.3 20.8 24.7 16.1 

$3,000.01 to $5,999.99 4.8 4.4 3.2 6.6 3.6 3.7 3.2 

$6,000.00 16.6 14.1 17.3 17.1 25.9 14.8 6.5 

Missing 55.9 59.9 57.2 54.2 44.2 48.1 67.7 

Average projected amount funded by CAA 

(dollars)b

 4,090 3,992 4,098 4,155 4,339 3,708 3,488 

Expected Degree, Certificate, Credential, or 

Licensec 

AA or AS diploma/degree 30.2 29.1 28.6 35.3 19.3 17.3 32.3 

BA/BS diploma/degree 10.7 7.6 10.9 10.7 19.3 17.3 9.7 

Occupational skills licensure 3.8 2.1 3.5 4.1 5.6 12.3 3.2 

Occupational skills certificate/credential 31.6 36.7 32.5 26.8 31.5 32.1 32.3 

Missing 23.8 24.6 24.4 23.0 24.4 21.0 22.6 

Target Industrye,f 

Health care 40.3 43.0 42.6 39.3 30.5 40.7 30.6 

Education 14.8 13.4 12.8 13.7 27.4 23.5 16.1 

Business administration 7.0 5.3 7.2 8.2 8.1 4.9 4.8 

Financial services 6.7 8.2 6.6 6.0 4.6 1.2 11.3 

Homeland security 3.9 4.5 4.4 3.7 1.5 1.2 6.5 

Information technology 2.9 1.6 2.9 3.8 2.0 7.4 3.2 

Human resources 2.4 0.9 2.7 3.4 2.5 1.2 1.6 

Hospitality 1.5 1.6 0.8 1.6 3.0 2.5 0.0 

Construction 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.5 1.2 1.6 

Other 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.4 1.0 1.2 0.0 

Missing 19.2 19.9 18.9 18.9 18.8 14.8 24.2 

65 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

Table V.4 (continued) 

All E1 to E6 to O1 to O4 to 

Characteristic Spouses E4 E5 E9 O3 O10 Other 

Target Occupationd 

Health Care Practitioners and Technical 10.4 7.4 10.8 12.4 12.2 12.3 3.2 

Education, Training, and Library 9.7 8.2 8.6 9.4 15.7 22.2 4.8 

Health Care Support 8.7 8.2 8.2 9.9 5.1 8.6 11.3 

Office and Administrative Support 7.0 6.1 6.6 8.4 4.6 7.4 6.5 

Management 5.6 2.4 5.4 7.5 6.6 4.9 12.9 

Business and Financial Operations 4.7 4.5 3.9 5.4 4.1 2.5 9.7 

Other 6.2 5.2 6.1 6.0 8.6 11.1 6.5 

Missing 47.9 57.9 50.5 40.9 43.1 30.9 45.2 

Sample Size 2,630 753 594 943 197 81 62 

Source: Individual-level data on clients provided by Military Spouse CAA Demonstration grantees. 

Note: Each site that issued CAAs to military spouses after mid-July 2008 provided an extract of its 

database between February 10 and March 6, 2009, for this analysis. Spouses from Maine, one 

of the eight CAA grantees, are not included in this analysis because Maine did not issue new 

CAAs after mid-July 2008. 

a

The data from the sites showed six spouses as having missing information on the purpose of the CAA. 

Because they had nonmissing information about the characteristics of a training program, they were reclassified as having the purpose of the CAA as a training/education program and a credential. 

b

This is calculated for spouses with nonmissing information for this data item. 

c

These categories have been chosen to correspond with Workforce Investment Act Standardized Record 

Data (WIASRD) categories of credentials. The WIASRD categories “high school diploma/degree” and 

“individual received training, but no recognized credential received” have not been included in the table 

because CAA recipients must have a high school diploma (or an equivalent). 

d

The data tool is designed to collect detailed O*Net information on occupations. The O*Net classification 

scheme uses 23 major groups to categorize occupations. The detailed codes were combined into the 

major groups and then reviewed to determine how further to aggregate the data. 

e

Originally, DOL and DoD identified five nationally recognized high-growth and high-demand fields in 

which spouses could pursue education and training programs, and, ultimately, careers, but they 

expanded the list of fields during the demonstration. No spouses in the Access data were reported as 

having social work, one of the new fields, as a target industry. 

f

The statistics in the rows for each category of industry include all subcategories for the industry. 

AA = Associate of Arts. 

AS = Associate of Science. 

BA = Bachelor of Arts. 

BS = Bachelor of Science. 

CAA = Career Advancement Account. 

DoD = Department of Defense. 

DOL = Department of Labor. 

66 
 

 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

2. Characteristics of the Training Programs 

Among spouses who planned to use their CAAs for a training or education program, and not 

for a credential only, the most common type of provider was a community college, used by 42 

percent of these spouses (Table V.5). Four-year universities and proprietary schools also were 

common, at 27 and 26 percent, respectively. 

About one-quarter of the spouses who planned to participate in an education or training 

program were expecting to receive their instruction through distance (Internet) learning, while nearly 

all the rest were planning to participate in traditional classrooms. Evidence from focus groups of 

spouses indicates that some spouses valued the opportunity to use the CAA for distance learning, 

since it allowed them to balance their education or training with child care and other responsibilities, 

while others thought they could learn better in a traditional classroom. 

It was common for the programs to be projected to last at least six months, with 55 percent 

lasting more than a year. For spouses with nonmissing information, the average length of the 

expected training was 17 months. 

An examination of the different branches of service separately shows that spouses with Air 

Force sponsors are much more likely than other spouses to plan to attend a four-year university. 

Sixty-five percent of Air Force spouses had this plan, compared to 26 percent of Army spouses, and 

15 percent each among Marine and Navy spouses. The most common type of school for Army and 

Navy spouses was community college at (51 and 50 percent, respectively), whereas about half of 

Marine spouses (53 percent) planned to attend a proprietary school. This difference across branches 

is likely to reflect differences across the subgroups of spouses in their prior education and work 

experience, as well as the availability and cost of training and education institutions near the bases of 

each branch of service. Perhaps because of the differences across branches of services in the types 

of institutions that spouses planned to attend, Marine spouses were more likely than other spouses 

to plan to participate in distance learning. While the average length of the program for each branch 

was greater than one year, the average length of the program ranged from 15 months for Marine 

spouses to 21 months for Air Force spouses. 

Table V.5 Characteristics of Planned Training or Education Programs for CAA Recipients Who 

Planned to Participate in Them, by Military Branch of Sponsor (In Percentages Unless Stated 

Otherwise) 

All 

Characteristic Spouses Air Force Army Marines Navy 

Type of Provider 

Community college 42.5 18.8 51.2 30.6 50.1 

Proprietary school 25.6 11.8 14.8 53.2 34.3 

Adult education provider 4.0 2.2 7.3 0.9 0.8 

Four-year university 27.4 65.0 26.2 15.3 14.6 

Othera

 0.6 2.2 0.5 0.0 0.2 

Delivery Method 

Classroom 72.7 85.1 70.7 51.1 83.0 

Distance (Internet) 26.4 12.6 28.8 48.0 16.5 

Otherb

 0.9 2.2 0.6 0.9 0.6 

67 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

Table V.5 (continued) 

All 

Characteristic Spouses Air Force Army Marines Navy 

Expected Length of Program 

3 months or less 6.8 3.4 8.0 6.5 6.9 

More than 3 months, but no more than 6 

months 6.0 5.5 3.7 9.3 7.7 

More than 6 months, but no more than 1 

year 32.2 25.4 31.5 38.6 32.6 

More than 1 year, but less than 2 years 25.4 31.8 28.1 15.4 24.5 

2 years 29.6 33.9 28.7 30.1 28.2 

Average length (months)c 16.9 21.4 17.0 14.8 15.7 

Sample Size 2,439 359 1,094 446 536 

Source:	 Individual-level data on clients provided by Military Spouse CAA Demonstration grantees. 

Note:	 Each site that issued CAAs to military spouses after mid-July 2008 provided an extract of its 

database between February 10 and March 6, 2009, for this analysis. Spouses from Maine, one 

of the eight CAA grantees, are not included in this analysis because Maine did not issue new 

CAAs after mid-July 2008. 

This table includes spouses who planned to use the CAA to participate in a training or 

education program. It excludes spouses who planned to use the CAA to obtain a credential 

only. Furthermore, the information in the table pertains to spouses’ plans for the first 

reported education or training program. One spouse was reported to have planned to use the 

CAA for more than one training or education program. 

The sum of the sample sizes in the columns for the four branches of military service is four 

spouses fewer than the sample size reported in the “All Spouses” column because information 

on the branch of service of the sponsors is missing for four spouses. 

a

Responses given to indicate an “other” type of provider include an employer, a medical school, and a 

hospital. Some spouses also gave responses for which the type of provider was unclear, such as 

“correspondence” and “teacher certification.” The category “employer” was specified in the Access data 

tool as an option for site staff to use. The other examples were recorded as narrative responses based 

on the selection of an “other” category for the type of provider. 

b

Examples of “other” types of delivery methods include self-study, and a combination of classroom and 

Internet. The category “self-study” was specified in the Access data tool as an option for site staff to use. 

The other examples were recorded as narrative responses based on the selection of an “other” category 

for the type of delivery method. 

c

This is calculated for spouses with nonmissing information for this data item. 

CAA = Career Advancement Account. 

Spouses of officers were more likely than spouses of enlisted personnel to plan to attend a fouryear university (Table V.6). Based on the analysis of subgroups by rank of service, between 47 and 

49 percent of the officer spouses planned to attend a four-year university, compared to between 22 

and 27 percent of spouses of enlisted personnel. This difference might depend, at least in part, on 

the differences across branches of service in the proportion of spouses married to officers, since 

Chapter IV shows that a higher proportion of Air Force spouses were married to officers. Despite 

this difference across ranks in the type of provider for the education or training, however, 

differences in the delivery method and length of the program across rank subgroups are relatively 

small. Between 51 and 59 percent of spouses in each rank subgroup planned to attend their 

program for more than a year, and the average length of the program ranged across subgroups from 

16 to 19 months. 

68 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

Table V.6 Characteristics of Planned Training or Education Programs for CAA Recipients Who 

Planned to Participate in Them, by Military Rank of Sponsor (In Percentages Unless Stated Otherwise) 

All E1 to E6 to O1 to O4 to 

Characteristic Spouses E4 E5 E9 O3 O10 Other 

Type of Provider 

Community college 42.5 41.1 42.1 46.2 31.9 31.0 55.4 

Proprietary school 25.6 32.2 28.1 20.7 19.8 16.9 25.0 

Adult education provider 4.0 3.9 2.8 5.7 0.5 1.4 3.6 

Four-year university 27.4 22.1 26.6 26.8 47.3 49.3 16.1 

Othera

 0.6 0.7 0.4 0.6 0.5 1.4 0.0 

Delivery Method 

Classroom 72.7 73.7 73.9 71.6 70.5 76.1 69.1 

Distance (Internet) 26.4 25.6 25.3 27.7 27.2 21.1 30.9 

Otherb

 0.9 0.6 0.8 0.7 2.3 2.8 0.0 

Expected Length of Program 

3 months or less 6.8 7.8 7.7 5.8 5.2 4.9 8.9 

More than 3 months, but no 

more than 6 months 6.0 5.6 7.3 5.5 6.9 1.6 8.9 

More than 6 months, but no 

more than 1 year 32.2 34.8 32.0 29.4 32.4 42.6 31.1 

More than 1 year, but less than 2 25.4 22.4 25.0 27.8 26.0 26.2 24.4 

years 

2 years 29.6 29.4 28.0 31.5 29.5 24.6 26.7 

Average length (months)c

 16.9 15.6 15.8 18.7 16.3 18.7 17.0 

Sample Size 2,439 704 547 878 183 71 56 

Source:	 Individual-level data on clients provided by Military Spouse CAA Demonstration grantees. 

Note:	 Each site that issued CAAs to military spouses after mid-July 2008 provided an extract of its 

database between February 10 and March 6, 2009, for this analysis. Spouses from Maine, one 

of the eight CAA grantees, are not included in this analysis because Maine did not issue new 

CAAs after mid-July 2008. 

This table includes spouses who planned to use the CAA to participate in a training or 

education program. It excludes spouses who planned to use the CAA to obtain a credential 

only. Furthermore, the information in the table pertains to spouses’ plans for the first 

reported education or training program. One spouse was reported to have planned to use the 

CAA for more than one training or education program. 

a

Responses given to indicate an “other” type of provider include an employer, a medical school, and a 

hospital. Some spouses also gave responses for which the type of provider was unclear, such as 

“correspondence” and “teacher certification.” The category “employer” was specified in the Access data 

tool as an option for site staff to use. The other examples were recorded as narrative responses based on 

the selection of an “other” category for the type of provider. 

b

Examples of “other” types of delivery methods include self-study, and a combination of classroom and 

Internet. The category “self-study” was specified in the Access data tool as an option for site staff to use. 

The other examples were recorded as narrative responses based on the selection of an “other” category for 

the type of delivery method. 

c

This is calculated for spouses with nonmissing information for this data item. 

CAA = Career Advancement Account 

69 


 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

REFERENCES
 

Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. “Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2008-09 

Edition, Job Opportunities in the Armed Forces.” Washington, DC: DOL, December 18, 

2007. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos249.htm on December 14, 2009. 

Department of Labor (DOL)/Department of Defense (DoD). “MilSpouse CAA Demonstration 

Weekly Report.” Washington, DC: DOL/DoD, May 18, 2009. 

Department of Labor (DOL)/Department of Defense (DoD). “MilSpouse CAA Demonstration 

Weekly Report.” Washington, DC: DOL/DoD, October 27, 2008. 

Harrell, Margaret C., Nelson Lim, Laura Werber Castaneda, and Daniela Golinelli. “Working 

Around the Military: Challenges to Military Spouse Employment and Education.” Santa 

Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2004. 

Lim, Nelson, Daniela Golinelli, and Michelle Cho. “Working Around the Military: Revisited.” Santa 

Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2007. 

Savych, Bogdan. “Effects of Deployments on Spouses of Military Personnel.” Santa Monica, CA: 

RAND Corporation, 2008. 

71 

APPENDIX A 

SAMPLE FRAME FOR THE INDIVIDUAL-LEVEL 

DATA ANALYSIS 

 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

As explained in Chapter IV, it was important to determine the sample frame for analysis—that 

is, which spouses from among all spouses in the sites’ data sets should be included in the analysis 

sample. This was an issue because sites were not required to enter information about spouses who 

were approved for a CAA on or after July 28, 2008, although many sites did record information on 

some spouses for whom it was not required to do so. Having information on some spouses who 

were approved for CAAs before July 28, 2008, but not information on other spouses who were 

approved for CAAs during the same time period, might lead to a bias in the sample if the included 

spouses and the excluded spouses differ systematically from each other. Therefore, to determine the 

appropriate sample frame, we needed to answer two related questions. The first question was, 

“What information in the data tool should be used to determine the date when a spouse was 

approved for a CAA?” Although the data tool includes an item for a final eligibility date—on which 

a spouse was determined to have met all eligibility criteria for receipt of a CAA—missing 

information for this data item suggested that other data items should be considered as back-up dates 

for the CAA approval date. The second question was, “What, if any, cutoff date should be used to 

restrict the sample?” While sites were instructed to enter information about spouses who were 

approved for a CAA on or after July 28, 2008, an earlier or later date might be more appropriate on 

the basis of sites’ actual use of the data tool. 

Answering the first question required identification of a single date, which we defined as the 

“enrollment date.” As described in more detail in Chapter IV, the data tool contains five CAArelated dates: (1) an orientation date; (2) an intake date, which is the date that the spouse submitted 

an application for a CAA; (3) the military eligibility determination date, which is the date that the 

military partner determined that a spouse met military eligibility criteria; (4) the final eligibility 

determination date, which is the date that a spouse’s full eligibility was determined, based on a 

decision typically made by workforce partner staff; and (5) the CAA start date, defined by DOL as 

the date on which a spouse begins training. Based on input from DOL, Mathematica implemented a 

decision to use these five dates to define an enrollment date for each spouse. Furthermore, any 

spouse who had at least one of the five dates in the Access data tool, and who therefore had a 

nonmissing enrollment date, was kept in the analysis sample. Thirty-one spouses who were in the 

data tool, but who lacked information on all five of these CAA-related dates, were excluded from 

the analysis file. (As discussed below, other spouses were excluded later as part of the process to 

define the analysis sample.) 

Of the 3,726 spouses in the files received from the sites, most (3,397) had a final eligibility 

determination date, which seems to be the date that most closely aligns conceptually with when a 

CAA is awarded (Table A.1). This is because this date indicates that a spouse has met all eligibility 

criteria, and he or she is entitled to disbursements of CAA funds for a training program or 

credentialing test. Two-hundred ninety-eight (298) spouses had at least one of the other dates but 

not the final eligibility determination date. If the final eligibility determination date is missing, we 

checked the other CAA-related dates in a specific order (the military eligibility determination, intake, 

orientation, and CAA start dates) to find one present and set the enrollment date equal to that value. 

Once a date was found for a spouse in the data file, no other dates were checked. 

75 
 

 

 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

Table A.1 Presence of CAA-Related Dates in the Military Spouse CAA Demonstration 

Access Data Files 

Presence of CAA-Related Dates in the Included in the 

Access Data Number of Spouses Analysis Sample 

Has a Final Eligibility Determination Date 3,397 Yes 

Is Missing a Final Eligibility Determination 

Date but Has the: 

Intake date only 185 Yes 

Intake and orientation dates only 18 Yes 

Intake, orientation, and military eligibility 

determination dates only 90 Yes 

Intake, orientation, military eligibility 

determination, and CAA start dates 2 Yes 

Orientation date only 1 Yes 

Orientation date and CAA start dates 

only 2 Yes 

Total 298 Yes 

Does Not Have Any of the 5 CAA-Related 

Dates 31 No 

Total 3,726 --

Note: The five CAA-related dates in the demonstration-specific Access data files are the 

intake date, the orientation date, the military eligibility determination date, the final 

eligibility determination date, and the CAA start date. 

The 298 spouses who are missing a final eligibility date but who could have an enrollment date 

using another CAA-related date variable can be viewed as consisting of three subgroups, all of which 

are included in the analysis sample. One subgroup consists of spouses who recently began their 

CAA involvement and were unlikely to have achieved final eligibility before the data from sites were 

provided for the analysis. Of the 298 spouses, about 45 belong to this subgroup: they have CAArelated dates that were in December 2008, January 2009, or February 2009. It is likely that most of 

these spouses were still working their way through the application process when the data extracts 

were provided in February and March 2009. Some are likely to have subsequently received CAAs, 

while others might never get a CAA. 

A second subgroup consists of spouses who began their involvement early in the grant period 

and who are likely to be excluded from the analysis sample due to use of a cutoff date to exclude the 

early part of the demonstration for which information on spouses is missing at a high rate (described 

more below). About 30 to 40 spouses out of the 298 spouses who are missing a final eligibility 

determination date but who could have an enrollment date using another CAA-related date are likely 

to belong to this subgroup. These spouses were excluded from the analysis file because their most 

recent CAA-related date is before the time frame that would be included in the analysis sample. The 

precise number of spouses in this group would depend on the cutoff date used to restrict the 

sample. 

The third subgroup consists of spouses for whom it is unclear whether they received a CAA but 

who were included in the analysis since their involvement was after mid-July 2008. About 215 to 

76 
MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

225 spouses have CAA-related dates from around mid-July 2008 to November 2008; again, the 

precise number depends on the cutoff date used to restrict the sample. For these spouses, there are 

at least four potential scenarios. One scenario is that the spouses achieved eligibility, but the final 

eligibility determination date is missing due to incomplete data entry. Spouses in this scenario 

should be included in the analysis sample since they received CAAs. A second scenario is that the 

spouses were determined ineligible; ideally, these spouses should not be included in the analysis 

sample. A third scenario is that the spouses could be eligible, but they lost interest before they 

received a final eligibility determination; under ideal circumstances, these spouses also should not be 

included. Finally, spouses could still have been working toward eligibility when the data extract was 

received for analysis; these spouses ideally should be included if they achieved final eligibility and 

excluded if they did not. It was not possible to distinguish between these four scenarios using other 

data items in the Access data tool, since data on CAA start dates (indicating the start of CAA-funded 

training) and outcomes are sparse. Furthermore, discussions with site staff about why the CAArelated date information is missing did not provide guidance on the frequency of each potential 

reason. 

Ultimately, the decision whether to include all, a subset, or none of these 298 spouses in the 

analysis sample was a judgment call. Based on input from DOL, a decision was made to use all five 

CAA-related dates to impute an enrollment date. As described above, the five dates in the data file 

were checked in the following order: the final eligibility determination date, the military eligibility 

determination date, the intake date, the orientation date, and the CAA start date. The first one that 

was present was used as the enrollment date. Compared to approaches that use fewer of the dates, 

this approach means that more spouses would be included in the analysis file, which in turn 

improves the correspondence between the number of enrollments recorded in the Access data files 

using this approach and the number of CAAs reported in the weekly reports data as having been 

awarded. However, using this approach means that the sample could include spouses who began the 

application process to establish eligibility for a CAA but for whom a final eligibility status could not 

be determined from the file. Some of these spouses might have achieved final eligibility, even 

though the data to document this are incomplete; others might have been determined ineligible, 

while still others might have dropped out of the approval process before the sites determined 

eligibility. The analysis sample also might include spouses who did not achieve final eligibility as of 

when the data were provided to Mathematica, as well as spouses who will never achieve eligibility 

for a CAA. 

After the decision was made to include in the analysis sample the spouses with any of the five 

CAA-related dates, DOL and Mathematica decided to restrict the analysis to spouses who began 

their CAA involvement on or after July 14, 2008. A cutoff of July 28, 2008, might seem most 

natural, because it was optional for sites to record information about spouses before July 28, 2008. 

However, use of the July 14, 2008, cutoff date for the analysis sample allows more spouses to be 

included in the analysis, while still yielding a high rate of correspondence between the number of 

spouses in the analysis sample and the number of spouses who were awarded CAAs during the same 

time period, according to aggregate information that states report weekly to DOL. Although 

inclusion of data on spouses who began their CAA involvement much earlier in the grant period 

also would increase the number of spouses in the analysis sample, the correspondence between the 

two data sources is lower. Therefore, doing so might distort the reported statistics, since the 

spouses included in the data might not be similar to those who began their involvement around the 

same time but for whom no data are available. 

77 


 

APPENDIX B 

MONTHLY STATISTICS ABOUT KEY DATES IN THE
 

CAA ENROLLMENT PROCESS 

 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

This appendix contains three tables that provide additional information to supplement the 

discussion in Chapter IV about the patterns in CAA enrollments over time and the one in Chapter V 

about the speed at which spouses moved through the different steps involved in receiving CAAs. 

Table B.1 shows the statistics for the number of CAA awards each month, the cumulative number 

of awards, and the percentage of the target number of awards that have been provided to spouses. 

Table B.2 shows, both for all spouses and for subgroups of spouses by the branch of service of the 

sponsor, the percentage of spouses who achieved each of the following steps in the CAA enrollment 

process: (1) orientation date, (2) intake date, (3) military eligibility determination date, (4) final 

eligibility determination date, and (5) CAA start date. Table B.3 shows comparable information for 

subgroups of spouses by the military rank of the sponsor. 

81 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

Table B.1 Cumulative Number of CAA Awards Over Time 

Cumulative Number 

of Awards as a 

Cumulative Awards Percentage of the 

New CAA Awards in by the End of the Target Number of 

Month the Month Month Awards 

January 2008 or Earlier 307 307 4.1 

February 2008 186 493 6.6 

March 2008 242 735 9.9 

April 2008 266 1,001 13.4 

May 2008 543 1,544 20.7 

June 2008 369 1,914 25.7 

July 2008 494 2,407 32.3 

August 2008 502 2,909 39.1 

September 2008 451 3,361 45.2 

October 2008 404 3,764 50.6 

November 2008 294 4,058 54.5 

December 2008 276 4,335 58.2 

January 2009 327 4,661 62.6 

February 2009 190 4,851 65.2 

March 2009 212 5,063 68.0 

April 2009 195 5,257 70.6 

May 2009a

 108 5,366 72.1 

Sample Size 5,366 5,366 

Source:	 States’ May 18, 2009, reports to DOL on the number of CAAs awarded through May 15, 2009. 

Notes:	 Occasionally, the cumulative number of awards by a state for a week was lower than the 

number for the previous week; this pattern suggests that the state made a correction to the 

prior count of awards. Because the corrections were small and could not be pinpointed to 

specific prior weeks, this analysis generally does not incorporate modifications to the states’ 

data. The one exception is for California data before April 14, 2008, because the state’s 

correction in that weekly report was large. Table III.1 provides further details. 

When a calendar week spanned the end of a month and the beginning of the subsequent 

month, the number of CAAs shown as having been awarded during that week is based on the 

proportion of weekdays in each of the two months. Due to rounding, the sum across states 

for a month might not sum to the total for the month. 

The number of CAAs that have been targeted for award, as of the May 18, 2009, weekly 

report, is 7,444 (Table I.2). 

b

Because this analysis is based on May 18, 2009, weekly report data about the number of CAAs awarded 

through May 15, 2009, the statistics reported for May 2009 might not include all CAAs awarded during 

the month. 

CAA = Career Advancement Account. 

DOL = Department of Labor. 

82 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

Table B.2 Dates of CAA Orientations, Intake, Eligibility Determinations, and Start of the 

CAA, by Military Branch of Sponsor (In Percentages Unless Stated Otherwise) 

All 

Characteristics Spouses Air Force Army Marines Navy 

Date of Orientation 

Before July 2008 12.3 26.6 12.2 0.9 12.2 

July 2008 14.3 22.3 18.2 1.8 11.9 

August 2008 20.6 20.3 21.1 26.4 15.6 

September 2008 12.6 10.7 16.1 12.7 7.5 

October 2008 12.2 9.9 13.0 13.3 11.4 

November 2008 9.4 6.9 10.2 9.3 9.5 

December 2008 7.1 2.5 6.2 6.9 11.6 

January 2009 6.8 0.8 2.8 15.3 11.2 

February 2009a 4.7 0.0 0.2 13.3 9.0 

Date of Intake 

Before July 2008 2.4 5.7 3.4 0.0 0.7 

July 2008 9.0 17.1 11.9 2.4 4.3 

August 2008 21.3 34.8 22.4 26.2 9.1 

September 2008 13.7 10.6 20.1 12.9 5.5 

October 2008 13.1 11.1 17.2 13.3 7.4 

November 2008 7.6 5.2 9.6 8.9 4.5 

December 2008 6.6 5.2 8.7 6.7 4.1 

January 2009 7.7 9.5 5.3 14.4 6.1 

February 2009a 3.2 0.5 0.5 13.1 2.6 

Missing 15.4 0.3 0.9 2.0 55.7 

Date of Military Eligibility 

Determination 

Before July 2008 8.6 21.2 10.3 0.9 3.7 

July 2008 13.2 23.1 16.0 1.1 11.2 

August 2008 22.5 20.9 22.7 26.7 19.9 

September 2008 12.6 11.3 14.6 12.7 9.9 

October 2008 13.0 11.3 14.3 13.4 11.6 

November 2008 9.5 5.0 10.5 9.4 10.4 

December 2008 7.9 2.8 7.6 6.9 12.1 

January 2009 8.2 4.4 4.0 15.6 12.2 

February 2009a 4.7 0.0 0.1 13.4 9.0 

Date of Final Eligibility 

Determination by One-Stop 

Career Center Staff 

July 2008 9.7 14.0 11.4 2.3 9.1 

August 2008 23.8 43.0 23.0 16.9 18.2 

September 2008 16.5 9.9 19.7 14.3 16.3 

October 2008 15.0 11.3 18.0 15.3 11.8 

November 2008 10.1 6.1 11.0 10.5 10.5 

December 2008 9.4 4.7 10.1 7.7 12.3 

January 2009 10.6 10.5 6.7 17.6 12.7 

February 2009a 4.9 0.6 0.1 15.3 9.1 

CAA Start Date 

July 2008 4.0 4.1 3.1 1.1 7.2 

August 2008 18.2 48.9 19.3 0.9 11.3 

83 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

Table B.2 (continued) 

All 

Characteristics Spouses Air Force Army Marines Navy 

September 2008 10.0 4.9 13.2 0.2 13.9 

October 2008 11.1 12.5 15.7 0.2 10.0 

November 2008 6.4 4.6 8.3 0.4 8.2 

December 2008 4.3 1.6 3.7 0.2 9.6 

January 2009 9.8 15.2 11.1 0.7 11.0 

February 2009a 2.4 1.6 0.9 0.2 6.5 

Missing 33.8 6.5 24.6 96.0 22.3 

Sample Size	 2,630 368 1,117 450 691 

Source: Individual-level data on clients provided by Military Spouse CAA Demonstration 

grantees. 

Notes:	 Each site that issued CAAs to military spouses after mid-July 2008 provided an 

extract of its database between February 10 and March 6, 2009, for this analysis. 

This analysis includes military spouse CAA recipients determined eligible between 

July 14, 2008, and when the site’s extract was provided. The analysis does not 

reflect activities and outcomes for these spouses after the extract dates. CAA 

recipients who were determined eligible for a CAA before mid-July 2008 are not 

included in the extracts. Spouses from Maine, one of the eight CAA grantees, are 

not included in this analysis because Maine did not issue new CAAs after mid-July 

2008. 

The sum of the sample sizes in the columns for the four branches of military service 

is four spouses fewer than the sample size reported in the “All Spouses” column 

because information on the branch of service of the sponsors is missing for four 

spouses. 

a

Because extracts of sites’ data were received between February 10 and March 6, 2009, the 

number of spouses with this event during February is likely to be higher than reported in this 

row. No spouses had this date in March 2009. 

CAA = Career Advancement Account. 

84 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

Table B.3 Dates of CAA Orientations, Intake, Eligibility Determinations, and Start of the 

CAA, by Military Rank of Sponsor (In Percentages Unless Stated Otherwise) 

All E1 to E6 to O1 to O4 to 

Characteristics Spouses E4 E5 E9 O3 O10 Other 

Date of Orientation 

Before July 2008 12.3 10.0 10.9 14.5 13.8 16.9 7.4 

July 2008 14.3 11.7 15.4 15.9 14.9 14.3 7.4 

August 2008 20.6 23.2 19.7 18.7 22.9 18.2 24.1 

September 2008 12.6 12.4 12.1 13.3 12.2 13.0 11.1 

October 2008 12.2 11.8 12.1 12.8 10.6 10.4 14.8 

November 2008 9.4 9.8 9.2 9.3 7.4 9.1 16.7 

December 2008 7.1 6.1 6.7 7.9 7.4 5.2 11.1 

January 2009 6.8 7.8 8.9 4.8 6.4 9.1 3.7 

February 2009a 4.7 7.2 4.9 2.8 4.3 3.9 3.7 

Date of Intake 

Before July 2008 2.4 1.9 2.0 2.4 4.6 6.2 1.6 

July 2008 9.0 6.9 10.3 10.0 10.2 6.2 8.1 

August 2008 21.3 23.0 19.7 19.8 27.4 25.9 11.3 

September 2008 13.7 13.0 12.6 15.2 12.7 9.9 19.4 

October 2008 13.1 12.9 12.5 13.6 10.2 16.0 19.4 

November 2008 7.6 7.7 8.2 6.7 8.1 6.2 12.9 

December 2008 6.6 5.8 6.2 7.3 6.1 3.7 14.5 

January 2009 7.7 8.4 9.6 6.6 6.1 6.2 4.8 

February 2009a 3.2 4.9 4.2 1.4 3.6 1.2 3.2 

Missing 15.4 15.5 14.6 17.1 11.2 18.5 4.8 

Date of Military 

Eligibility 

Determination 

Before July 2008 8.6 7.0 7.6 9.9 10.2 13.0 5.7 

July 2008 13.2 10.0 14.7 15.3 11.3 14.3 5.7 

August 2008 22.5 25.2 20.5 20.6 29.0 15.6 24.5 

September 2008 12.6 12.7 11.3 13.6 10.8 15.6 11.3 

October 2008 13.0 12.4 13.5 13.1 12.9 11.7 17.0 

November 2008 9.5 9.2 9.3 9.7 7.5 10.4 17.0 

December 2008 7.9 7.4 7.6 8.7 5.9 6.5 11.3 

January 2009 8.2 8.9 10.5 6.3 8.1 9.1 3.8 

February 2009a 4.7 7.3 4.9 2.7 4.3 3.9 3.8 

Date of Final Eligibility 

Determination by OneStop Career Center 

Staff 

July 2008 9.7 7.7 10.9 10.6 10.3 9.1 7.7 

August 2008 23.8 25.3 22.8 22.6 29.3 27.3 11.5 

September 2008 16.5 16.1 13.5 19.2 12.1 16.9 21.2 

October 2008 15.0 13.7 14.8 15.9 14.4 16.9 17.3 

November 2008 10.1 10.4 9.9 9.8 8.6 9.1 17.3 

December 2008 9.4 8.7 10.1 10.2 6.9 5.2 13.5 

January 2009 10.6 10.4 12.9 8.9 13.2 11.7 7.7 

February 2009a 4.9 7.7 5.1 2.8 5.2 3.9 3.8 

85 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

Table B.3 (continued) 

All E1 to E6 to O1 to O4 to 

Characteristics Spouses E4 E5 E9 O3 O10 Other 

CAA Start Date 

July 2008 4.0 3.5 5.1 3.7 5.6 1.2 3.2 

August 2008 18.2 18.1 18.0 17.8 19.8 25.9 11.3 

September 2008 10.0 8.9 7.9 12.3 9.6 13.6 4.8 

October 2008 11.1 7.6 10.3 13.7 12.7 16.0 9.7 

November 2008 6.4 6.0 6.6 7.2 4.6 7.4 3.2 

December 2008 4.3 4.1 4.7 4.7 4.1 3.7 0.0 

January 2009 9.8 7.0 10.3 10.3 14.2 12.3 16.1 

February 2009a 2.4 2.5 2.0 2.2 4.1 2.5 0.0 

Missing 33.8 42.4 35.2 28.1 25.4 17.3 51.6 

Sample Size 2,630 753 594 943 197 81 62 

Source: Individual-level data on clients provided by Military Spouse CAA Demonstration 

grantees. 

Notes: Each site that issued CAAs to military spouses after mid-July 2008 provided an 

extract of its database between February 10 and March 6, 2009, for this analysis. 

This analysis includes military spouse CAA recipients determined eligible between 

July 14, 2008, and when the site’s extract was provided. The analysis does not 

reflect activities and outcomes for these spouses after the extract dates. CAA 

recipients who were determined eligible for a CAA before mid-July 2008 are not 

included in the extracts. Spouses from Maine, one of the eight CAA grantees, are 

not included in this analysis because Maine did not issue new CAAs after mid-July 

2008. 

a

Because extracts of sites’ data were received between February 10 and March 6, 2009, the 

number of spouses with this event during February is likely to be higher than reported in this 

row. No spouses had this date in March 2009. 

CAA = Career Advancement Account. 

86 
 
 

APPENDIX C 

ACTIVITIES AND EXPENDITURES DURING USE OF THE CAA
 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

As discussed in Chapter IV, the analysis of individual-level data in this report focuses on the 

characteristics of spouses and their plans for using their CAA as of when they began their CAA 

involvement. This focus is driven by the timing of when DOL asked sites to begin recording 

information on spouses, the length of the training and education programs in which spouses were 

participating, and the time frame for when extracts of the data would be required for analysis. 

After receipt of the data from sites in early 2009, however, an investigation was conducted to 

determine whether it made sense to report additional information about the experiences and 

outcomes of spouses after their initial CAA involvement. Topics included whether spouses 

completed their education or training programs, if they planned to participate in them; the 

attainment of credentials; CAA expenditures per participant; and use of non-CAA services paid for 

by WIA or another source. Most data items were not complete enough to warrant reporting. For 

example, of the 2,630 spouses in the analysis data file, 1,832 (70 percent) had missing information 

about the expenditures on the CAA. Staff were asked to record information about expenditures to 

date as of when they provided the extracts for the analysis. However, discussions with site staff 

indicated that some staff often were waiting to record this information in the data tool until after all 

expenditures were completed. Because information about expenditures was often recorded in a 

separate data system, not specific to the Military Spouse CAA Demonstration, it was cumbersome 

for staff to record this information even when it was available. 

Despite the low quality of most data items collected after the initial involvement of spouses in 

the demonstration, however, this appendix contains information from two states, Colorado and 

Florida, about spouses’ receipt of WIA services because these data are complete for most spouses in 

these states. For the analysis in the main chapters of the report, data from Fort Walton Beach, 

Florida, and Jacksonville, Florida, are combined. However, for this appendix, the analysis of Florida 

data is restricted to Jacksonville, which collected and reported its data separately from that of Fort 

Walton Beach. Data from both Fort Walton Beach and other states besides Colorado are excluded 

from the analysis because of the high rates for which these data are missing. Because the statistics 

differ dramatically for these two sites, the information is shown by site (Table C.1), in addition to 

subgroups by branch of service (Table C.2) and rank of service (Table C.3). 

When the extracts of data were provided for analysis, 37 percent of spouses at either Colorado 

or Florida-Jacksonville were reported to have received 0 WIA services, whereas 29 and 34 percent, 

respectively, received 1 and 2 services (Table C.1). However, an examination of the data by site 

shows that all spouses who received 2 services were from Jacksonville, and all spouses who received 

0 services were from Colorado. Almost all spouses who received 1 service were from Colorado. 

Colorado spouses were shown as having received 0.4 services, on average, and almost all who 

received any service received labor market information. In Jacksonville, all spouses were recorded as 

having received job counseling or staff-assisted job development. About 71 percent received an 

interest or personal inventory, and nearly all the rest received a skill or ability assessment. 

The statistics in Tables C.2 and C.3, which show the information by the branch and rank of 

service, respectively, are likely to be driven by the variations across the two bases. Air Force spouses 

are exclusively from Colorado, and Army spouses are almost all from Colorado. Thus, spouses 

from these branches of service were likely to receive either 0 or 1 service (labor market information). 

Navy spouses were almost all from Jacksonville and were likely to have received two services: (1) 

job counseling or staff-assisted job development, and (2) a skill/ability assessment or an 

interest/personal inventory. In addition, while an examination of the receipt of WIA services across 

89 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

Table C.1 Use of WIA Services in Colorado and Florida-Jacksonville, by Site (In Percentages 

Unless Stated Otherwise) 

FloridaCharacteristic All Spouses Colorado Jacksonville 

Number of Different Types of Services Useda 

0 37.1 56.6 0.0 

1 28.7 43.5 0.7 

2 34.2 0.0 99.3 

Average Number of Different Types of 

Services Usedb 1.0 0.4 2.0 

Types of WIA Services Used (More than One 

Service Allowed): 

Skill/ability assessment 9.6 0.0 28.0 

Interest/personal inventory 24.6 0.0 71.3 

Job counseling or staff-assisted job 

developmentc

 34.7 0.4 100.0 

Labor market information 28.2 43.0 0.0 

Sample Size	 415 272 143 

Source: Individual-level data on clients provided by Military Spouse CAA Demonstration 

grantees. 

Notes:	 Each site that issued CAAs to military spouses after mid-July 2008 provided an 

extract of its database between February 10 and March 6, 2009, for this analysis. 

Spouses from Maine, one of the eight CAA grantees, are not included in this analysis 

because Maine did not issue new CAAs after mid-July 2008. 

This table is restricted to Colorado and Florida-Jacksonville, since they are the only 

sites that reported data on the types of WIA services that spouses received. 

Although some sites are recording spouses’ participation in WIA activities in a WIAspecific database, the information on WIA activities in this table is from the data tool 

is specific to the Military Spouse CAA Demonstration. No cross-checks of the data 

from the two databases have been done to examine the consistency or accuracy of 

the data reported for the evaluation. 

a

The Access data tool allows site staff to record when spouses received a WIA service, but not to 

actively indicate that spouses did not receive any WIA services. The statistics in this table are 

based on an assumption that the absence of information about receipt of WIA services means 

that the spouse did not receive any WIA services. That is, all spouses are assumed to have 

nonmissing information about receipt of services. 

b

This is calculated for spouses with nonmissing information for this data item. 

c

The Access data tool included separate categories for job counseling and staff-assisted job 

development. However, the statistics on these services are combined because of infrequent 

use of the staff-assisted job development category in the data tool. 

CAA = Career Advancement Account. 

WIA = Workforce Investment Act. 

90 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

Table C.2 Use of WIA Services in Colorado and Florida-Jacksonville, by Military Branch of 

Sponsor (In Percentages Unless Stated Otherwise) 

Characteristic All Spousesa Air Force Army Navy 

Number of Different Types of Services 

Usedb 

037.1 42.5 61.1 1.4 

128.7 57.5 37.4 2.1 

2 34.2 0.0 1.5 96.5 

Average Number of Different Types of 

Services Usedc 1.0 0.6 0.4 2.0 

Types of WIA Services Used (More 

than One Service Allowed): 

Skill/ability assessment 9.6 0.0 0.5 27.1 

Interest/personal inventory 24.6 0.0 1.0 69.4 

Job counseling or staff-assisted job 

developmentd 34.7 0.0 2.0 97.2 

Labor market information 28.2 57.5 36.9 1.4 

Sample Size 415 73 198 144 

Source: Individual-level data on clients provided by Military Spouse CAA Demonstration 

grantees. 

Notes:	 Each site that issued CAAs to military spouses after mid-July 2008 provided an 

extract of its database between February 10 and March 6, 2009, for this analysis. 

Spouses from Maine, one of the eight CAA grantees, are not included in this analysis 

because Maine did not issue new CAAs after mid-July 2008. 

This table is restricted to Colorado and Florida-Jacksonville, since they are the only 

sites that reported data on the types of WIA services that spouses received. 

Although some sites are recording spouses’ participation in WIA activities in a WIAspecific database, the information on WIA activities in this table is from the data tool 

specific to the Military Spouse CAA Demonstration. No cross-checks of the data 

from the two databases have been done to examine the consistency or accuracy of 

the data reported for the evaluation. 

a

No military spouses from Colorado and Florida-Jacksonville reported having a sponsor in the 

Marines; thus, the columns in the table for the military branches are restricted to the Air Force, 

Army, and Navy. 

The Access data tool allows site staff to record when spouses received a WIA service, but not to 

actively indicate that spouses did not receive any WIA services. The statistics in this table are 

based on an assumption that the absence of information about receipt of WIA services means 

that the spouse did not receive any WIA services. That is, all spouses are assumed to have 

nonmissing information about receipt of services. 

c

This is calculated for spouses with nonmissing information for this data item. 

d

The Access data tool included separate categories for job counseling and staff-assisted job 

development. However, the statistics on these services are combined because of infrequent 

use of the staff-assisted job development category in the data tool. 

CAA = Career Advancement Account. 

WIA = Workforce Investment Act. 

91 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

Table C.3 Use of WIA Services in Colorado and Florida-Jacksonville, by Military Rank of 

Sponsor (In Percentages Unless Stated Otherwise) 

Characteristic 

All 

Spouses 

E1 to 

E4 E5 

E6 to 

E9 

O1 to 

O3 

O4 to 

O10 Other 

Number of Different Types of 

Services Useda 

0 

1 

2 

 37.1 

 28.7 

34.2 

34.0 

37.0 

29.0 

40.0 

17.0 

43.0

 43.0 

 25.9 

 31.1 

22.4 

38.8 

38.8

 33.3 

 23.8 

 42.9 

40.0 

60.0 

0.0 

Average Number of Different 

Types of Services Usedb

 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.2 1.1 0.6 

Types of WIA Services Used 

(More than One Service 

Allowed): 

Skill/ability assessment 

Interest/personal inventory 

Job counseling or staffassisted job developmentc 

Labor market information 

9.6 

24.6 

 34.7 

28.2 

8.0 

21.0 

29.0 

37.0 

12.0 

31.0 

44.0 

16.0 

7.4

 23.7 

 31.9 

 25.2 

 14.3 

24.5 

38.8 

38.8

 14.3 

 28.6 

 42.9 

 23.8 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

60.0 

Sample Size 415 100 100 135 49 21 10 

Source: Individual-level data on clients provided by Military Spouse CAA Demonstration 

grantees. 

Notes:	 Each site that issued CAAs to military spouses after mid-July 2008 provided an 

extract of its database between February 10 and March 6, 2009, for this analysis. 

Spouses from Maine, one of the eight CAA grantees, are not included in this analysis 

because Maine did not issue new CAAs after mid-July 2008. 

This table is restricted to Colorado and Florida-Jacksonville, since they are the only 

sites that reported data on the types of WIA services that spouses received. 

Although some sites are recording spouses’ participation in WIA activities in a WIAspecific database, the information on WIA activities in this table is from the data tool 

specific to the Military Spouse CAA Demonstration. No cross-checks of the data 

from the two databases have been done to examine the consistency or accuracy of 

the data reported for the evaluation. 

The Access data tool allows site staff to record when spouses received a WIA service, 

but not to actively indicate that spouses did not receive any WIA services. The 

statistics in this table are based on an assumption that the absence of information 

about receipt of WIA services means that the spouse did not receive any WIA 

services. That is, all spouses are assumed to have nonmissing information about 

receipt of services. 

b

This is calculated for spouses with nonmissing information for this data item. 

c

The Access data tool included separate categories for job counseling and staff-assisted job 

development. However, the statistics on these services are combined because of infrequent 

use of the staff-assisted job development category in the data tool. 

CAA = Career Advancement Account. 

WIA = Workforce Investment Act. 

92 
MilSpouse CAA Demonstration Study Report: Part II Mathematica Policy Research 

the rank subgroups of the sponsors shows a few differences across ranks, the statistics are based on 

small sample sizes (Table C.3). 

Care must be taken when interpreting the statistics on WIA service receipt because the 

information was recorded by two sites only and because most spouses were still participating in the 

CAA program. The data do not reflect all WIA-funded services that these spouses will receive by 

the time they complete their involvement in the demonstration. 

93