Research Report 1376

00

Receptiveness of Army Families in

USAREUR to Incentives for Extension

Halim Ozkaptan, William Sanders, and Robert F. Holz

USAREUR Field Unit

Manpower and Personnel Research Laboratory

ftELEC-Ifilk

DEC 5 1986

A

P,2 U.S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

August 1984

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

86 12 04 061
U. S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

A Field Operating Agency under the Jurisdiction of the

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

L. NEALE COSBY

EDGAR M. JOHNSON Colonel, IN

Technical Director Commander

Technical review by

Hyder Lakhani Aces.%.," _ Shelley A. Thomas NTIS G&,X -

Ju ie

Dist ri but i op,

Dist Special

NOTICES

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

Please address correspondence concerning distribution of reports to: U.S.

Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, ATTN:

PERI-POT, 5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexundria, Virginia 22333-5600.

FINAL DISPOSITION: This report may be destroyed when It Is no longer

needed. Please do not return It to the U.S. Army Resoarch Institute for

the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

NOTE: The findings In this report are not to be construed as an official

Department of the Army position, unless so designated by other authorized

documents.
IJNCLASS IPED

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When Diato Entered)

READ INSTRUCTIONS REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE BEFORE COMPLETING FORM

1. REPORT NUMBER 2. GOVT ACCESSION NO. 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER

ARI Research Report 1376

4. TITLE (and Subtlitle) S. TYPE OF REPORT 11 PERIOD COVERED

RECEPTIVENESS OF ARMY FAMILIES IN USAREUR Final Report

TO INCENTIVES FOR EXTENSION 6. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER

7. AUTHOR(s) . CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(e)

Halim Ozkaptan, William Sanders, and

Robert Holz

C. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT. TASK AREA & WORK UNIT NUMBERS

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral

and Social Sciences 2Q263743A794

5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22333-5600 5111 100

II. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS 12. REPORT DATE

August 1984

13. NUMBER OF PAGES

14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME & ADDRESS(I1 different from Controlling Office) 1S. SECURITY CLASS. (of this report)

Unclassified

15a. DECLASSIFICATION/DOWNGRADING

SCHEDULE

16. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of thle Report)

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited

17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the abstract entered In'Block 20, If different from Report)

IS. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

19. KEY WORDS (Continue on teerse side It neceassry and identify by block number)

Incent-ives

F-am!7-1-ies

Adjus tmen

Tour Extension.-

20. ABSTRACr (c-ntEwu* m esor ro easd it nec-eeary aerd ldentli( by block number)

.... The cost of moving Army families into and out of USAREUR represents a

major financial burden to the Army. Significant cost savings can be realized

if the current families in USAREUR can be induced to extend their tours. This ,

research assesses the relative effects of a range of financial and other incentives on the willingness of Army families to extend tours in USAREUR for /

12 additional months. It also touches on some of the underlying reasons why

famil s choose not to extend. Surveys were administered to more (continued)

FORM14

DO I , 1473 EDITION OF NOV 6S IS OBSOLETE UNCLASSIFIED

i SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (wreu Date Entered)
UNCLASSIF I.D

SCCURtTY CLASSIICATION Of THIS PAGC(Whu, DO itL.f.4)

ARI Research Report 1376

20. (continued)

than 1,000 Army families: including both the service members and their

spouses. The data obtained permit Army planners to determine the most

cost-effective incentives for a desired extension rate. Data for enlistees, noncommissioned officers (NCOs), and officers are presented separately.

IiL

UNCLASSIFIED i

i.1 $CUKITY CLASSIFICATIOH of- THIS PAGE( " ' .n Do,. - nte,.d)
Research Report 1376

Receptiveness of Army Families in

USAREUR to Incentives for Extension

Halim Ozkaptan, William Sanders, and Robert F. Holz

USAREUR Field Unit

Robert F. Holz, Chief

Manpower and Personnel Research Laboratory

Joyce L. Shields, Director

U.S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22333-5600

Office, Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

Department of the Army

August 1984

Army Project Number Education and Training

20263743A794

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

iii
ARI Research Reports and Technical Reports are intended for sponsors of

R&D tasks and for other research and military agencies. Any findings ready

for implementation at the time of publication are presented in the last part

of the Brief. Upon completion of a major phase of the task, formal recommendations for official action normally are conveyed to appropriate military

agencies by briefing or Disposition Form.

iv
FOREWORD

The financial costs associated with a permanent change of station (PCS)

represent one area in which possible cost savings can be realized without a

negative impact on Army operations and readiness. The largest of these costs

occur during the transfer of Army families to overseas assignments such as

USAREUR. This research investigates the relative effects of financial and

other incentives on the willingness of Army families to extend tours in

USAREUR. It also touches on some of the underlying reasons why families

choose not to extend. The obtained data provide the necessary information

for Army planners to determine the most cost-effective incentives for a desired extension rate of enlistees, noncommissioned officers (NCOs), or officers. The research was conducted by ARI's USAREUR Field Unit, under the

Manpower and Personnel Research Laboratory.

EDGAR . JOH SON

Technical Director

v
RECEPTIVENESS OF ARMY FAMILIES IN USAREUR TO INCENTIVES FOR EXTENSION

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Requirement:

The costs associated with a permanent change of station (PCS) of Army

families to USAREUR are in the range of $22,686 per family. The aggregate

PCS cost of some 61,000 married and accompanied service members in USAREUR,

rotated on a periodic basis, imposes a large financial burden on Army resources. Significant cost savings can be realized if financial or other

incentives can induce the current families in USAREUR to extend their tours.

This research was conducted to determine the present extension plans of Army

families and the percentages that would be willing to extend their tours for

various incentives.

Procedure:

A survey was prepared to assess the relative effects of a $50, $100, or

$200 per month bonus or a one-time $1,000, $2,000, or $3,000 bonus on the

willingness of families to extend in USAREUR for 12 months. In addition, the

incentive value of a space required trip to point of embarkation or home of

-record, with 30 days noncharged leave, was assessed. The option of a different job was also offered as an incentive for a 12-month extension.' This survey was incorporated into a larger survey that was designed to determine the

factors that help Army families hdjust in USAREUR. The combined survey was

administered in May 1983 to more than 1,000 Army families, including both the

service members and their spouses. The families sampled were representative

of service members in combat arms, combat support, and combat service support

organizations that were distributed over large, medium, and small military

communities. A representative distribution of married and accompanied families in each rank grade was obtained.

Findings:

Service members fall into three clear groups with respect to their plans

for extension: those who would extend without incentive, those who might extend if offered an incentive, and those who would not extend even for an

incentive.

The service members who would not extend even for incentives (the "no"

decision group) cepresent about one-thirdof the sample surveyed and are

equally divided among all rank groups.

The service members who would extend without incentives (the "yes" decision group) represent 20% of the total sample. The service members who are

unsure or who may consider extending for incentives (the "'maybe" decision

group) represent 50% of the total sample.

vii

__ 4 W. if KW
There is a direct positive relationship between increasing rank and

willingness to extend without incentives. Conversely, as rank decreases the

uncertainty about extending and the need for incentives increases.

Service members in the "yes" decision group are relatively more satisfied with their family and Army life and their housing than personnel in the

other decision groups. Their experiences in USAREUR exceeded their expectations, and they see a USAREUR assignment as good for their careers.

Service members in the "no" lecision group are dissatisfied with almost

all facets of their USAREUR tour, including almost all the family and community support variables surveyed. In particular, their experiences did not

meet their expectations with respect to life in Europe and travel opportunities.

Service members in the "maybe" decision group fall midway between the

other two groups, and could be considered as viewing the financial and other

incentives offered as compensation for any hardships they may experience. In

this group, as in the others, reasons cited for dissatisfaction are family

and job related rather than financial. This decision group can be considered

the target of opportunity for any incentive program to increase extensions.

A relatively larger percentage of the service members in the lower ranks

fall in the "maybe" decision group and are attracted by the incentives. This

group includes 61% of the enlistees, 48% of the noncommissioned officers

(NCOs), and 39% of the officers. However, the actual percentages of the married and accompanied service members within these same rank categories in

USAREUR are 10%, 44%, and 52%. This is due to the fact that the number of

married service members increases as rank increases. The married and accompanied service members represent 27.8% of the total USAREUR population.

As the financial value of the incentives offered increases, the percentage of service members who would consider extending increases in a propor- tional manner.

There were statistically significant differences among the three decision groups in terms of their willingness to extend for any of the financial

incentives. As would be expected, the "yes" decision group has the highest

percentage of service members who would accept a financial incentive, and the

"no" decision group has the lowest percentage of service members who would

accept such incentives.

A similar pexcentage of service members in each of the three rank groups

(enlisted, NCO, and officer) is attracted by each of the financial incentives

offered.

For the "maybe" group certain incentives (e.g., $200 a month or $2,000 a

year) could increase the potential extension rate above the estimated financial break-even point (2 x base rate). Although the estimated base rate in

this survey is approximately 16% for all ranks, the actual base rate must be

determined and the break-even point calculated separately for each Lank group.

A space-required airline ticket for the family to either (1) the point

of embarkation or (2) the home of record plus 30 days of noncharqed leave for

each of these options has an incentive value for tne service members in the

"maybe" group equivalent to the financial incentives.

viii

f~r~q %-4m K4 Ar W'
A job change has an incentive value for enlisted and NCO service members

in the "maybe" group comparable to the financial and travel home incentives.

The most desirable incentive of those offered for both the service members and spouses in the "maybe" groups is $3,000 a year. A trip to the home

of record is the second priority for the spouse regardless of the service

member's rank.

Among the spouses of the service members, 44.6% indicated they would

support a decision by their spouse to extend. However, only 20% of the service members fall in the "yes" decision group.

Service members in each of the three decision groups have the same background characteristics. In particular, there are no differences with respect

to age, time in service, education, or distribution of grades within each rank

group.

Service members in the "yes" decision group are more satisfied with their

family life, Army life, ard housing in USAREUR. The least satisfaction with

respect to these factors is reported by the "no" decision group. The spouses

in each decision group report a similar satisfaction level.

When compared to their assignment before coming to USAREUR, members of

the "yes" decision group are more satisfied than the other decision groups with their family life. The "no" and "maybe" decision groups, however, are

more dissatisfied with their family life and community support services in

USAREUR, with the responses of the latter group being less extreme than those

of the former group.

Service members in the "yes" decision group found their experiences in

USAREUR to exceed their expectations. The expectations of the service members in the "no" group with respect to living and traveling in Europe and

increased chances of promotion were not met.

There is a small relationship between the size of the military community and the decision to extend, with service members being less willing to extend

as community size decreases. However, the smaller communities contain more

enlisted personnel, which may account for this relationship.

More of the service members in the "yes" decision group see USAREUR as

being good for an Army career. The smallest number of service members reporting this viewpoint are in the "no" group. Enlisted personnel within the

"no" group have the most negative view in this regard.

Family- and job-related reasons are seen by service members in each of

the three decision groups as the two major obstacles to an extension in

USAREUR. More officers indicate family reasons, and more enlisted and NCO

personnel indicate job-related reasons. The data also suggest that improvement in these areas ot personal satisfaction will be more cost-effective in

increasing extensions than improvement in community support services.

None of the decision groups or rank groups sees money as an obstacle to

extending in USAREUR.

ix
Conclusions:

Two relatively extreme family groups exist in USAREUR. First, the "yes"

decision group can be characterized as being satisfied with almost all facets

of USAREUR life and life in Europe. Second, the "no" decision group is dissatisfied with life in USAREUR and Europe. This attitude generalizes to almost every facet of life in USAREUR. These two groups represent 20% and 30%

of the USAREUR family population, respectively, and appear "set in their

views" toward a possible tour extension regardless of any incentive the Army

may offer.

The "maybe" decision group represents the target of opportunity for the

incentives offered. Money problems are not the predominant reason for their

uncertainty, and they may instead consider money as compensation for the difficulties they experience. Personnel in this group, as in the other groups,

cite family reasons and job-related reasons as the most important factors

that would prevent them from extending, with the officers being more influenced by family reasons and the enlisted and NCO personnel being influenced

by job-related reasons. This information supports the attractiveness of the

incentives related to a job change and a trip home. However, the degree a

job change would increase intratheater turbulence and cost must be assessed.

The financial incentives offered do not directly address the underlying

problems that influence a service member's decision to extend. An equal or

greater return in extensions may be achieved by changes in present practices

or new policies that affect job and family satisfaction.

The data reinforce the importance of family support programs and initiatives related to job assignment, rather than improvement of community support

services alone.

Recommendations:

The financial break-even point should be calculated for each rank category in the "maybe" decision group relative to PCS costs saved, compared with

the cost of incentives that would be paid to these service members who would

extend without incentives.

The incentive to be offered should be selected in terms of the financial

value that corresponds to the extension rate desired for each rank category,

assuming that the desired gain in extensions falls above the financial breakeven point.

A trip home should be offered as an alternative option if its financial

cost is equivalent to or less than the financial value associated with the

desired rate of extension.

A job change, when feasible, should also be considered as an alternative

option.

The degree to which the data in this research can be extrapolated to

the unmarried population and the married, unaccompanied population should be

determined, taking into account the base extension rates and PCS costs for

these groups.

x

*'1 Y J
A comprehensive survey that samples the entire USAREUR population (including unmarried, married, and unaccompanied) is warranted. It should address changes in existing policies and procedures and new policies with respect to their potential impact on extensions. Such a survey should focus

on family support as well as job assignment and enrichment issues. The cost

of such changes should be compared with financial incentives alone in terms

of the potential gain in extensions.

xi
RECEPTIVENESS OF ARMY FAMILIES IN USAREUR TO INCENTIVES FOR EXTENSION

CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION ........... ................................. 1

METHOD ............. .................................... 2

Survey Instrument ............ .......................... 2

Sampling Plan ............. ............................ 3

Representativeness of Sample .......... .................... 5

Data Analysis .......... ............................... 7

RESULTS ............. ............................... 9

Decision to Extend ............ ......................... 9

Relationship of Decision to Extend and Rank Relative to Incentives 12

Analyses of the Attractiveness of Each Incentive Relative to

Each Decision Group ........ ....................... . 17

Value of Incentives for the Spouses of Service Members . ....... . 22

Demographic Variables Related to the Decision to Extend ........ . 24

Quality of Family Life and Community Variables Related to

Decision to Extend ......... ........................ . 26

Perceptions of the Value of a USAREUR Tour and Factors That

Would Influence the Decision to Extend ................. ... 34

DISCUSSION ................. . .... .................... . 36

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. The number of survey sets administered and returned for

each community ........ ........................... 4

2. Comparison of the percent married and accompanied in each

rank category between the survey sample and USAREUR

population statistics ...... ..................... 6

3. Rank distribution for total USAREUR force compared to

married and accompanied in each rank category ... ........ 7

A. Distribution of rank groups by community size ... ........ 8

5. Frequency and percent of sample, responding by rank and

decision group ............ ........................ 10

xiii
CONTENTS (Continued)

Page

Table 6. Percent of rank groups in USAREUR population compared to

percent of same groups that are married and accompanied

and that fall in the "maybe" decision group . ......... . i.11

7. Percentage of service members and spouses in each decision

group .......... ............................ .. 22

8. Relative attractiveness of most preferred incentives for

service members and spouses by rank group for the "maybe"

decision group ......... ........................ ... 23

9. Relative attractiveness of each incentive for service members

and spouses by rank group for the "maybe" decision group . . . 24

10. Statistically significant background differences for each

decision group by rank group ..... ................. .. 25

11A. Incentives that are statistically significant relative to

selected background variables of the enlisted and NCO rank

groups in the "maybe" decision group ... ............. .. 27

lIB. Incentives that are statistically significant relative to

selected background variables of the officer rank group

in the "maybe" decision group . ....... ..... 28

12A. USAREUR community life 'elements seen as either better or

worse than previous assignment by each decision group . . . . 30

12B. USAREUR community life elements seen as only relatively

worse than previous assignment by each decision group . . . . 31

13. Comparison of expectations about USAREUR with experiences

in USAREUR by decision groups .... ................ .. 33

14. The relationship between community size and decision to

extend ........... ............................ . 34

15. Percentage of service members who see an assignment in

USAREUR as being good for their Army career by decision

group and rank group ....... ..................... .... 35

16. Reasons cited as the "one thing" that would stop a service

member from extending by decision group and rank group . . . . 35

xiv
CONTENTS (Continued)

Page

c LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Percent of each decision group expressing willingness to

extend for financial incentives (across all rank groups) . 13

2. Percent of each rank group expressing willingness to extend

for financial incentives (across all decision groups) . . . . 14

3. Percent of each decision group expressing willingness to

extend for each incentive (across all rank groups) ..... . 15

4. Percent of each rank group expressing willingness to extend

for each incentive (across all decision groups) ........ ... 16

5. Comparison of the relative attractiveness of financial and

non-financial incentives for all decision and rank groups 18

6. Comparison of the relative attractiveness of incentives

for the rank groups within the "yes" decision group ....... 19

7. Comparison of the relative attractiveness of incentives

for the rank groups in the "no" decision group ........ ... 20

8. Comparison of the relative attractiveness of incentives,

for the rank groups in the "maybe" decision group ....... ... 21

9. Percent of each decision group expressing satisfaction

with family life, Army life, and housing ... .......... ... 29

xv

~ .' P J' ~ ? F ~ ~ ~~PJ J1 A is IF.. -- F -F . - i -s . I I .r - I - .F . f -. ' .7 .I7 - .7 -1
RECEPTIVENESS OF ARMY FAMILIES IN USAREUR TO INCENTIVES FOR EXTENSION

INTRODUCTION

It costs the U.S. Army about $22,686 to move a military family to USAREUR

for a permanent change of station (PCS). A family willing to extend its tour

amortizes this cost over a longer period of time. A family that extends from

3 to 4 years, for example, will yield a net savings for the Government of

$1,890 for each of the 4 years. In addition to these cost savings, turbulence

and new training costs associated with personnel changes are reduced. There

are approximately 61,000 married and accompanied service members stationed in

USAREUR. If 40-50% of these families can be attracted to extend, the cost

savings would be significant. Such savings, however, would be reduced by the

cost of any incentives that are used.

In March 1983 the growing concern about the magnitude of PCS costs among

the Army leadership led MG C. Rogers, DCSPER, USAREUR to ask the USAREUR Field

Unit of the Army Research Institute to prepare a survey to estimate the willingness of Army families to extend for a range of financial and other incentives.

At that time, the USAREUR Field Unit was working in conjunction with the University of Minnesota to prepare a survey to identify the factors that enable

Army families to cope with the demands of an overseas assignment. MG Rogers

asked that the survey for his objectives be added to this larger effort.

The following objectives were established to determine the receptiveness

of Army families in USAREUR to incentives for extension:

o Obtain data on the estimated gain in extensions for a variety of

financial and other incentives to enable the conduct of cost/benefit

analyses.

o Determine the relative value of incentives for enlisted personnel,

NCOs, and officers.

o Determine the relationship of demographic variables (e.g., education,

time in service, age) on the decision to extend.

o Determine the relationship between USAREUR experiences and the decision to extend.

The larger survey instrument, to which the survey instrurent on incentives was attached, was designed to assess predeployment, arrival, and qualityof-life issues in USAREUR relative to a CONUS assignment. Two complementary

versions of this survey were prepared for administration to the service member

and his or her spouse. The survey was administered in May 1983 to over 1,000

Army families representing service members n combat arms, combat support, and

combat service support units distributed over large, medium, and small military

units in USAREUR.

Data were obtained on the present plans of the families to extend, and

the relative attractiveness of the incentives for extension for enlisted, NCO,

and officer families. The data provide a basis for determining the most

1
cost-effective incentives to attract the desired percentage of Army families

in each rank group. Comparable data for unmarried service members and married

unaccompanied service members were not collected.

METHOD

Survey Instrument

Based on the goals as stated in the preceding section, a series of 14

questions were prepared to elicit the reaction of the family members to the

following incentives:

o $50 per month for 12 months

o $100 per month for 12 months

o $200 per month for 12 months

o A one-time bonus of $1,000 at the end of 12 months

o A one-time bonus of $2,000 at.the end of 12 months

o A one-time bonus of $3,000 at the end of 12 months

o Space-required airline tickets for family to point of embarkation

and 30 days noncharged leave

o Space-required airline tickets for family to home of record and

30 days noncharged leave

o A different job for 12 months.

Two other basic types of questions were asked. The first of these dealt

with the service member's (SM) present plans to extend. "Do you plan to

extend---?" and "Would you extend---if given the chance?" The latter question

was asked to capture those individuals who were being reassigned for reasons

beyond their control. A third question asked was "Would you extend---if the

Army gave you enough money?"

The second set of basic questions dealt with the perception of whether a

tour in USAREUR was seen as "---good for your Army career." Another question

was asked to determine the "one thing that would prevent you from extending"

(e.g., financial reasons). These questions were attached to a larger survey

that was underway. This survey instrument, "Army Family Profile Strengths and

Coping," was designed to assess family adaptation and adjustment in USAREUR.

The preparation of this instrument was a collaborative effort between personnel

from the University of Minnesota and the ART USAREUR Field Unit.

The survey instrument contains specific scales prepared by the University

of Minnesota and questions added by Field Unit members based on a model of the

factors influencing family adaptation to USAREUR. Two complementary versions

of the survey were prepared. One was for administration to the SM, and the

other to his or her spouse. Most of the questions were asked of both family

2
*members. Others were asked of one or the other, primarily to reduce the total

number of questions on each survey. The two instruments were packaged together

and provided as a set to the SM, who in turn took them home, completed the survey with the spouse, and returned them to the ARI researchers the next day.

The questions pertaining to extensions were asked of both family members.

The addition of these questions to the larger survey permitted relating the

resulting responses to a larger set of issues such as "expectations" before

coming to USAREUR, community size, satisfaction, etc.

Sampling Plan

The sampling plan was designed to meet the requirement of surveying 1,000

families in USAREUR during a 3-week period in May 1983. The sampling approach

was based on the premise that a representative slice of USAREUR families would

be related to the type of military unit to which they are assigned (i.e., combat arms, combat support, and combat service support), and that their experiences would be influenced by the type of military community in whicn they were

located (small, medium, and large). The latter would also be influenced by

whether they are in a relatively urban or rural German area.

Consequently, two related and overlapping layers of stratification--type

of unit and size of military community--were involved. These layers recognized

that combat units would typically be found near smaller military communities as

well as rural German areas. In addition, a proportionate stratified sample was

desired, where the ratio of combat unit types in the sample would be similar to

their ratio in USAREUR. Expert military judgment was used to select such units.

The final unit/communities selected from those that were recommended was based

on unit availability in the required time frame (month of May 1983). The units

and communities are described below.

Unit 1. Combat arms Community is small; surrounding

German environment is rural.

Unit 2. Combat arms Community is small; surrounding

German environment is rural.

Unit 3. Combat arms Community is moderate in size;

surrounding German environment is

relatively urban and industrial.

Unit 4. Combat support and American community is moderate in

combat service support size; surrounding German environment

is urban.

Unit 5. Combat service support American community is large; surrounding German environment is ! i ' ! urbn.

Unit 6. Combat service support American community is moderate in

size; surrounding German environment

is urban.

3
A Unit 7. Combat arms American community is small to

i moderate in size; surrounding

German environment is relatively rural.

As can be seen from the above, four of the seven units were combat units located in small to moderate military communities and in rural or relatively

rural German areas. The remaining three combat units were predominantly combat service support located in moderate or large military communities and in

relatively urban German areas.

After the selection of the above unit/communities, we departed from the

usual stratified random sampling approach and elected to sample the entire

population of married families in each of the unit/communities selected (less

those families with two married service members and single-parent families).

This was easier and more practical, and eliminated any sampling errors related

to random sampling.

At each unit the service members were assembled at the same place and

time and asked to take a survey set home, to fill out the survey independently

from spouses, and to return the completed surveys within 24 hours. The number

of survey sets administered in each community, the number returned, and the

number of usable survey sets are shown in Table 1. As can be seen in this

table, a total of 1,227 sets of surveys were administered and 1,052 were returned; of these only 1,036 sets were in sufficiently completed form to serve

as data for purposes of overall analysis. The number of usable survey item

responses varies slightly due to individual omissions. The above number of

usable survey sets represented an 84.4% return rate.

Table 1

The Number of Survey Sets Administered and Returned for Each Community

Survey sets Survey sets Usable

Community administered returned survey sets

Unit 1 189 143 143

Unit 2 260 223 223

Unit 3 160 134 129

Unit 4 181 180 169

Unit 5 138 113 113

Unit 6 132 118 118

Unit 7 167 141 141

Total 1,227 1,052 1,036

Each survey set contains one survey for the service member and one for his or

her spouse.

85.7% surveys returned from those administered.

84.4% usable surveys from those administered.

4
Representativeness of Sample

Based on available data files in USAREUR, an analysis was conducted to

determine the representativeness of the obtained sample relative to the total

population of USAREUR married and accompanied families. The data are shown

in Table 2. This table compares the number married in each rank category (El

to 06) to the total number married of all ranks in terms of percentage for

(1) our sample and (2) the USAREUR population. As can be seen from these

data, our sample contains a roughly proportional percentage of married persons

in each rank category relative to the percentage of the married USAREUR population in each rank category. The USAREUR data shown in this table however

must be qualified as follows:

1. USAREUR married and accompanied population data are not precisely

known, due to a combination of reasons such as normal delays in

updating, the failure of service members to update their data, etc.

2. The reported USAREUR-wide data contain no information on singleparent families or families with two military members, which were

also excluded intentionally from our sample.

3. USAREUR-wide data on accompanied families may include some cases

where the service member is accompacnied by a child but not a spouse.

4. Data on accompanied, non-command-sponsored families may be underreported in the USAREUR data, due to lack of incentive on the part

of service members to do so. The available data indicate that 6.3%

of the 61,043 married and accompanied USAREUR families were not command sponsored. In our sample this percentage was 16.6%. -

The number of married and accompanied service members in USAREUR is compared to the total number of service members in USAREUR in Table 3. This

table shows the number of service members in USAREUR who are married and accompanied, relative to the total number of SMs in that rank category. As can

be seen in this table, 52.3% of the officer population in USAREUR is married

and accompanied. However, officers represent only 9.4% of the total USAREUR

population. While enlisted personnel represent 51.7% of the total USAREUR

population, only 10.7% are married and accompanied. Overall, married and accompanied service members represent 27.7% of the total USAREUR force. I Data

were not available on how many service members in Europe are married and unaccompanied. The data available to us indicate, however, that at least 50%

of the total Army population is married.2

The distribution of the sample's enlisted, NCO, and officer rank groupings

by community size are shown in Table 4. As would be expected, the percentage

of enlisted personnel is largest in the small communities, with the percentage

iThis number may be underestimated. The USAREUR Personnel Opinion Survey

(UPOS) conducted in December 1983 with 6,600 respondents obtained a figure

of 43%.

2 Raw data from Manpower Data Center (DOD), Arlington, VA, December 1980, as

compiled by Family Resources Center, March 1982.

5
4) Il

> $4

(d o " 0 to

4) (' 00 >1

4) -H .0H

0$ (a4

-1$ U )

04

0) 

$ >1 0

4) 4-4

$4 4)>1 0 ~ 0d$4

U) M)) q MIlN m0 mM m0~ 4d '44 -4.-HIt4 . * . 0 . I o * * * . 0 dp to 4) 0 04 $4 04 0 MM0-c NO'V 0 00 0 -fMCIV.M 0 I

4)4 0 0

4) Ei

0 4-) -iI

4) 4

0 0 OZ' 4-i W r-.4) -H d fl M0C' N q tn M 0 0:

4)) l0u (t40 0

4.)4

C))0 0 r

00 4

d r 40 1 ~ $4

44)t a 4 (D rq .0

.0

>

4) 4)%

4) 0 NA 0o0 ., 4 4)'$4 04 00' 1 884L A 8 0 $48 m' VN4r 0 4

$40 4 *.MO 0

M -M 0 :) E 0 4) 4

0 $4

p 02

V 0 (

4) Vz .r4 t 4)

4)0 0o 0-H 4) M M W V M * M f* N V * N M Mq * l M M *4 v 0 VP 

tr C14 E4 W M 04 0 '~ 0 0-IV0(NJLr')-0040 a 04. () - C'C' - 0 I 4.

S4U) 4.0 0 04 4) ~4) M0 0 4

4) 44 0 000

$4 C4 H

W AsM4) 4. 0 4

r- -04 J$0 -N ' c ) ' ( C - 0 S V 00 ~ -J v4 n r a nV NcnqL D% 4)q 

fu 0 0E (a W W0 Pa - o 4.)3:::to 

E-1 L-M
of officers being the largest in the large communities where the MACOMS are

more typically located.

Table 3

Rank Distribution for Total USAREUR Force Compared to Married and Accompanied

in Each Rank Category

Total % of total

USAREUR in each Total USAREUR % of married

service rank married and within each

Rank members category accompanied rank category

El 5,716 86

E2 8,979 51.75 212 10.68

E3 34,570 1,553

E4 64,346 10,286

E5 42,843 14,944

E6 24,712 12,752

E7 13,016 38.83 7,491 44.70

E8 3,944 2,336

E9 722 574

Wi 697 329

W2 1,742 1,140

W3 1,076 762

W4 324 228

01 1,904 9.42 333 52.26

02 3,835 1,297

03 6,251 3,245

04 2,754 1,878

05 1,541 1,139

06 560 458

219,532 100% 61,043*

*27.8% of total USAREUR service members.

Data Analysis

All rank levels were included in the sample population. In order to

simplify data analysis, three rank groups were established. The service members were divided as follows:

Enlisted El-E4

NCO E5-E9

Officer 01-06, plus Warrant Officers Wi-W4

The major decision in this respect was excluding E-5s from the enlisted category. Our demographic data showed that the majority of E-5s had over 3 years

7
of service, and as such represented a career group. E-5s are also included as

part of the NCO population in the annual "USAREUR Personnel Opinion Survey."

Warrant officers were included as part of the officer population to avoid the

creation of a fourth category, particularly since they represented only 1.7%

of our sample.

Table 4

Distribution of Rank Groups by Community Size

Row

Small Medium Large percentage

Enlisted 129 (64.5%) 58 (29.0%) 13 (6.5%) 100%

NCO 276 (46.0%) 263 (44.0%) 58 (10.0%) 100%

Officer 37 (22.0%) 72 (42.0%) 62 (36.0%) 100%

442 (46.0%)* 393 (40.5%)* 133 (13.5%)*

Total 968

*Percent of total survey sample

The following procedure was used to select members of each decision group.

The "yes" decision group is comprised of those SMs who responded "yes" to the

following question: "Would you extend on your present tour here in USAREUR if

you were given the choice?" The "no" decision group is comprised of those SMs

who responded "no" to the following question: "Would you extend on your present

tour here in USAREUR if the Army gave you enough money?" The "maybe" decision

group is comprised of those SMs who did not respond with either one of these two

options. They indicated they were "not sure," that they might extend, but only

for an incentive. Each decision group had, as a result, nonoverlapping SMs

from the total sample population. The question, "Do you plan to extend---,"

was not used in the creation of the three decision groups. Of the sample, 15.6%

responded positively to this question, while 20% of the sample responded positively to the question "Would you extend if given the chance?" As noted earlier, it was our opinion that this group included people who were attracted to

USAREUR but were not extending for circumstances beyond their control. Our goal

was to differentiate as clearly as possible the groups in terms of the attractiveness of a USAREUR tour without the influence of other possibly irrelevant

factors. A comparison is warranted, however, between the actual extensions in

USAREUR and the percentage of responses to these two survey questions.

Each of the incentive options was followed by four response categories:

"Definitely not," "Might consider it," "Very likely," and "Would definitely

extend." The data in the latter two categories were combined and treated as

an affirmative response. This avoided the influence of any response bias on

the part of the respondents in terms of personal interpretation or cautiousness.

The responses of the three decision groups are compared on the basis of these

8
data, since the combined data of the remaining categories are the complement to

it. While other alternatives existed, the adopted approach permitted ease of

presentation and interpretation of the data. The analysis was primarily limited to the data of the service members, with some analysis of the responses of

spouses as warranted. This latter decision was based on an analysis to determine the similarity between the responses of the SM and spouse in the same family. The high consistency of the responses between them in terms of decision

to extend justified basing the analysis primarily on the responses of the SM.

As discussed in the Results section, only 7% of the families had individuals

who reported "yes" to the decision to extend, while the opposite member reported

"no." Any analysis conducted on the data for the spouse was selected on the

extension decision of the SM in order to maintain consistency of the reported

data between family members.

The two principal i.actors used in the analyses were decision to extend

and rank. Each of these factors was treated at three levels, which permitted

the conduct of a two-way analysis of variance with a 3 x 3 design. The dependent variables were the incentive options and other questions evaluated.

The analyses were based on the frequency of responses for a response option.

The survey item responses were not averaged or weighted across response categories (e.g., no problem, small problem, etc.) since the psychometric scaling

properties of the various response categories were not known.

RESULTS

Decision to Extend

As discussed in the section on Method, the responses of the service members were divided into three decision groups:

yes - those who would extend regardless of incentives

maybe - those who would consider extending for incentives

no - those who would not consider extending regardless of incentives.

The breakdown of our sample into these three decision groups and by the three

rank groupings is shown in Table 5. The data in this table indicate that a

higher percentage of officers are in the "yes" group (32.2%) than enlisted

personnel (11.1%). on the other hand, more enlisted personnel are in the

"maybe" group (61.8%) with only 39.2% of the officers in this group. The "no"

group contains an equal percentage of each rank grouping. In short, a larger

proportion of the officer population is willing to extend regardless of incentives, while a larger proportion of the enlisted population would consider extending for incentives. The "maybe" decision group in this respect is the

target of opportunity for us. It represents the group from which additional

extensions could be obtained if incentives were offered. The following analyses and recommendations are based primarily on this decision group.

In Table 5, it can be seen that fewer service members in the "maybe"

group would be attracted to incentives as rank increases. Table 3 shows that

as rank increases a greater proportion of service members are married. The

result is that the extension incentives would attract a larger percentage of

the married accompanied enlisted personnel who, however, are a smaller propori tion of the total force. The implications of this data are shown in Table 6,

9
ad P *p

LA

4.4)

00 Lji diap

4J ('4 1 ;

S-i Z'

0

0 H

C4)

co 0

0

toV

0

04 N

i-C4 DC4 '- L

0 0 04r P n.

0. 0( OD

44 t

0 4

04

0l

Hd H~(4-

0 0 0'0 *p 0 *p Sc

0 0 L0

'0'

H ft
which combines the data from Tables 3 and 5, and indicates the projected numbers of service members who could be attracted by incentives. This table shows

that there are 113,611 enlisted men in USAREUR (or 51.75% of the total force),

that 12,137 are married and accompanied (10.68% of the total number of enlisted

men), and that 7,501 married and accompanied enlisted men could be expected to

consider extending for incentives (the 61.8% of the enlisted men who fall in

the "maybe" decision group). This represents 6.6% of the total enlisted population in USAREUR. Similarly, 21.6% of the NCOs and 20.5% of the officers in

USAREUR would be attracted by incentives. Put another way, the incentives

would appeal to 50% of the total married and accompanied population in USAREUR

or to 13.7% of the total USAREUR population. The degree to which incentives

would appeal to the unmarried service member or the unaccompanied married service member cannot be estimated on the basis of these data, but obviously some

meaningful percentage of these groups should also be attracted.

Table 6

Percentage of Rank Groups in USAREUR Population Compared to Percentage of Same

Groups That Are Married and Accompanied and That Fall in the "Maybe" Decision

Group

Percent of Number of

total Number of Percent personnel Percent of

USAREUR personnel married and married and sample in

force in USAREUR accompanied accompanied "maybe" group

Enlisted 51.75 113,611 10.68 12,137 61.8

NCO 38.83 85,237 44.70 38,097 48.4

Officer 9.42 20,684 52.26 10,809 39.2

Total 100% 219,532 61,043

The first column in Table 5 provides an extension base rate estimate. It

indicates that overall, 19.6% of our sample would like to extend regardless of

incentives. Specifically, 11% of the enlisted, 18.9% of the NCOs, and 32.2%

of the officers. These figures should be confirmed by the actual USAREUR extension rates in these groups. These data in effect represent the base rate

for the calculation of buy-in costs relative to savings in PCS costs to determine how many extensions are required to break even. One estimate is that the

number of extensions must exceed twice the base rate. It is recommended, however, that the break-even point be calculated for each rank grouping. We have

been advised by DCSPER that the base rate for all extensions in USAREUR is 9%.

If this figure is reliable, it would appear,that the married accompanied USAREUR

population is more willing to extend than the overall USAREUR population.

11

J

4 . ° 9 ,N 571 W . ' ' J , , N , ; ' gN . A A A. A .A,
Relationship of Decision to Extend and Rank Relative to Incentives

As discussed in the Method section, the two principal factors in the

analyses were decision to extend and rank. Each of these factors was treated

at three levels, which permitted the conduct of a two-way analysis of variance.

VI The following data present the results of this analysis with respect to each of

these factors.

The percentage of each decision group indicating a willingness to extend

for each of the monetary incentives offered is shown in Figure 1. As can be

seen in this figure, there is a clear differentiation between the "yes," "maybe," and "no" groups with respect to the attractiveness of the incentives and

their willingness to consider extending. The response differences between each

of these three groups are statistically significant (p < .05) for each of the

incentives offered. The results for each decision group can be viewed with

respect to how much it would take to overcome their resistance or desire not

to extend. In this regard, a higher percentage of the "yes" group would elect

to accept each of the incentives. Their resistance threshold, of course, is

low or nonexistent. However, they still react to the desirability of the incentives. The "no" group, on the other hand, has a high resistance to extending. They have relatively little positive response to the incentives offered.

Certain incentives, however, can be viewed as exceeding their resistance threshold (e.g., $3,000/year).

The "maybe" group, as one would expect, falls in the middle of the other

two groups. Their willingness to extend increases markedly as financial incentives increase. Put another way, their resistance to extending is overcome

by increasingly higher incentives.

The data for each of the three rank groups is shown in Figure 2. Of interest in this figure is the fact that each of the three rank groups responds

in an equivalent manner to the financial incentives offered. There is no

statistically significant difference between each of the three rank groups,

except for the $50/month incentive, where the enlisted men express greater

interest. In effect, the increasing financial incentives have an equally

attractive value to each rank grouping. This analysis, of course, does not

reflect the differential results of the three decision groups as shown in

Figure 1.

The attractiveness of the nonfinancial incentives for the three decision

groups and for the three ran!: groups is shown in Figures 3 and 4, respectively.

These incentives are for (1) a space-required trip back to the point of embarkation; (2) a space-required trip back to the home of record; and (3) a job

change.

The response to these incentives is plotted together with the financial

incentives for comparison purposes. The three decision groups again respond

in a significantly different manner for these additional incentives, with the

"yes" group being the most attracted by the additional incentives and the "no"

group being least attracted. The results for these additional incentives are

similar to the financial incentiv , for each of the three decision groups.

The three rank groups, however, as can be seen in Figure 4, no longer respond

in an equivalent manner as they did for financial incentives. The trip back

12
U)

0a

00

CO)

00

CC)

(U

6 4

0

0

m45I

0'

W0 -

0 01

0

0v 0

0 cc.. 0

0> ~ z

LU U)

CC

.2 0

0< 0 0

GNEIIX3 ,kl11NUd3G HO A13>111 A83A iN3O0J3d w x 0

a. wJ

Q)

04

5.4

13
U)

0o

00

00

coU

C;o

00

00

00-

0 (U

V. 0

0

>m 0

0

.

Co

D: 0~ 0 r

o 0 0 0 W

cr Z a.

co 04

0

$4

144
wH

0z

00

o

00 -o z

I-I

00

LLZ

-:

0

0

0

00

o0 *

o1 w

o 0

0 00-00 04

p. 0

-. 1

GN313 A311IAG 0 AAA1 A83 iN083 ro

oKw
home, whether to the point of embarkation or home of record, is of more interest to the officer population, while a job change is of more interest to the

enlisted and NCO populations. These differences were found to be statistically

significant (p < .05). As can be seen in both Figures 3 and 4, the trip home

and a job change have an incentive value (in terms of the percentage who would

be willing to extend) equal to a financial incentive alone. This relationship

is compared more directly in Figure 5, where differences in rank and decision

groups have been averaged out for purposes of illustration. Figure 5 shows,

for example, that a job change has an incentive value equivalent to a financial

incentive of $1,500, since 32% of the sample population would react favorably

to each of these incentives. The trip home would be equivalent to an incentive

value of $200/month, each capturing a 47.8% positive response. These relationships argue strongly for the consideration of these incentives alone.

Analyses of the Attractiveness of Each Incentive

Relative to Each Decision Group

The data in this section deal with the relative value of each incentive

for each of the decision groups by rank. As indicated earlier, the "maybe"

decision group represents the target group of interest for any tour extension

incentives program. The "yes" group will benefit by the selection of any incentive, without an increase in extensions. Some individuals in the "no" decision group may still extend at any financial level. The data for these latter groups, however, do not materially aid in the selection of an incentive

level. The data are shown in Figures 6 and 7, for the "yes" and "no" decision

groups, respectively. The difference between these two groups in terms of their

willingness to extend for any incentive is clearly illustrated when they are

compared to each other. Little or no rank differences are evident in the "yes"

decision group (Figure 6), with some differences showing up for the "no" decision group (Figure 7). The data in this figure indicate that the NCO is

relatively more likely to consider extending than the enlisted service member

or the officer for $2,000 or $3,000/year. The latter financial incentive, in

this regard, attracts NCOs at a level that may exceed the break-even point.

In addition, both NCOs and enlisted personnel in the "no" decision group are

more interested in a job change than officers. The differences between the

rank groups just cited were found to be statistically significant (p < .05).

The data for the "maybe" decision group are shown in Figure 8 for each of

the rank groups. If one accepts 19.6% as the overall sample base rate for extensions of the married and accompanied population (Table 5), then several of

the incentives would increase extensions beyond the break-even point, which is

roughly estimated to be twice the base rate. This would include the following

financial and nonfinancial incentives, which attract at least 40% of the respondents in the "maybe" decision group: $200/month, $2,000/year, $3,000/year,

a trip to the point of embarkation, a trip home, and a job change for enlisted

and NCO personnel. The latter also reflects that a job change as well as

$1,000 and $3,000/year are relatively more attractive incentive options for

the enlisted and NCO personnel than for officer personnel (p < .05).

The information in Figure 8 provides the basic data for the calculation

of the most cost-effective incentive relative to the actual extension base rate

of each rank group. Such a calculation would have to take into account the

extra incentive costs of the "yes" group relative to the base rate, and the

17 6" N( 4-'
-04

P 0

(U

00

0

0~0

z

0 ..-V)

0-

LI

0 0 >-

w

0J *

00

44

oe 04

W .

(U)

<-

0 0- 0 00

GN31X3 A131lNlJ3G 80 A13>1I1 AE13A IN3083d Tr

rZ4

18
10

0 Q)

0

0

00

0 z co

49 W >

0 0

F'.1- a)

o >

o ~ J 4.)

0~

0

4

w a-)

U.U

0 0 tw 

00

0S

00

L)

0 000

0 (0 0* 

GN31X3 kl1lNI=13( 80 A13>11I1 AkU9A iN3083d

19
aw

00

1

00 P

0 0 .

0i

U) 41A

w $4

0 > to!

00

0

w

w0

o co )o . 1

Z 44

-0 0 o. Z M

o C4

z X ) 0 w >

0 4-

-J >

.AJ

0 41)

cis

00

$4 0 0) 00

U. -4 01)

0r w 0W

CO

o 0 0 00

0 O 04 C'!

GN31X3 kl1lNI:13( 80 A131I1 AU3A iN3083d

20
o Z

0 C

00

000

a.~

rg 0Z

'10 $4

0- pW 

o0

z t * - W

00

r<

0 - .

49-

XL 04

p 0 4

r4 0

IC4 H

0 Q

Zw.IHGU 1>11AR NO~
savings in permanent change of station (PCS) costs to be realized. The actual

incentive value to be used should be selected relative to the percent gain in

extensions desired, assuming the figure falls above the break-even point.

Value of Incentives for the Spouses of Service Members

The degree to which spouses would support the service member's decision on

extension is shown in Table 7. As can be seen in this table, the spouses are

very willing to support a decision to extend in USAREUR: 44.6% of the spouses

responded "yes," while only 20.1% of the SMs responded "yes." The opposite occurs for the "maybe" group: 49.6% of the SMs responded "maybe," while only

26.7% of the spouses did so. On the other hand, an equivalent number of spouses

and SMs responded "no." Of the married couples, 50% responded to the same decision category. Only 7% of the couples had opposite responses of "yes" or

"no." In the other 43% of the cases, the alternate response was "maybe" by one

of the family members. The data indicate considerable agreement within the family, with the spouse more predisposed to extend than the service member.

Table 7

Percentage of Service Members and Spouses in Each Decision Group

Yes Maybe No

Service member 20.1 49.6 30.3

Spouse 44.6 26.7 28.8

50% of service members and spouse pairs selected the same response option.

The value of any incentive should be a function of its appeal, both to the

service member and the spouse. It is necessary to determine the degree of

agreement between the spouse and SM on the incentives themselves. The analysis

was conducted for the "maybe" decision group, in order to provide more information on the relative utility of the incentives for this target population. The

data are reported in Tables 8 and 9 relative to each of the three rank groups.

Table 8 shows the four most desired incentives for the service member and the

spouse as detecmined by the percentage of each that responded favorably to each

option. As can be seen in Table 8, the officers and their spouses report the

same degree of preference. They each rank $3,000/year as their first preference

with a trip home and a trip to CONUS ranked second and fourth, respectively.

Not surprisingly, military members and spouses in the enlisted and NCO groups

also rank $3,000/year as their first preference. A trip home, however, represents the second priority for the spouses in these two groups, but not the service member. The relative attractiveness of all of the incentives for service

members and spouses by rank groups is shown in Table 9. The least attractive

for all groups, not surprisingly, is $50/month.

22
C/)

$4 4Z

24 N0 0 0

0. E4-

0 040 04

0 $4 ( N$

0 0)o).E

44

4.4

r. 0

rd

.0 N-100 0

cnU) 0 N0 0040 04

M W C'$4 N 0o) E4WE

04

U)> rSr.>

(n: 0~ .1- 0 0,04r.30

0 1-10

0 0 104 NO

0j 0 .

z $4 $4 $4W

$4 0404 0

00-1

0 0 0004 $4 4 %Q 0 % 4 0 m 4 44i

00

Al $4 0

4) d) 400 U

0 0 0-C 0 Hc 0 0 A 5*r4

0) 04 0 N0

$4 U) 0 04 00 ill -r $4 - -,10.,14 u

4-4 00

$4 x

$4 $

W4 z 05 40 U 4-4 CD Ul) ON1 0 r 0 0 0040 $4 C0 .0.4 . V. 0 0 (Y N C1 4.3

~44J

>~ 2
Table g

Relative Attractiveness of Each Incentive for Service Member and Spouse

by Rank Group for the "Maybe" Decision Group

Enlisted NCO officer

SM Spouse SM Spouse SM Spouse

$50/month 6% 6%** 7% 10% 5% 10%

$100/month 20% 18% 25% 22% 17% 14%

$200/month 62%* 43% 65%* 46% 53%* 35%

$1,000/year 27% 20% 26% 22% 11% 13%

$2,000/year 52% 41% 58%* 45% 47%* 27%

$3,000/year 84%* 68% 82%* 70% 69%* 48%

Trip to CONUS 42% 42% 34% 37% 47% 35%

Trip home 53% 53% 53% 51% 61%* 43%*

Job Change 42% 38% 39%* 30% 21% 23%

*Indicates significant response difference between service member and spouse

(p < .05).

**All figures reflect percentage responding "very likely" or "definitely extend."

Demographic Variables Related to the Decision to Extend

As part of the Family Survey, several questions were asked to obtain information on the background demographic characteristics of the sample surveyed.

These included questions pertaining to age, length of marriage, number of children, time in service, education, family income, time served in USAREUR on this

tour, number of PCSs to USAREUR, and whether they volunteered for a USAREUR tour.

These questions, however, were not designed to meet the needs of the incentive

survey, and are less comprehensive than we would have desired. The demographic

information, for example, did not include questions which would permit us to

differentiate a "quality" soldier. The available data, nonetheless, indicate

some interesting and predictable relationships.

An analysis was conducted to determine whether demographic variables were

related to the decision to extend by rank groups. The demographic variables

that show a statistically significant response difference are shown in Table 10.

Few variables proved to be discriminating, with none for the enlisted group.

As can be seen in this table, the NCOs who plan to extend (the "yes" group)

are differentiated by those service members who had volunteered to come, had

greater family income, and had spent more time in USAREUR (this tour). Officers in the "yes" group were also predominaptly those service members who had

volunteered to come. Only two variables differentiated service members in the

"maybe" decision group, and this occurred only for officers. The demographic

variables were lower family income and less time in USAREUR (this tour). Some

hope had been expressed by military personnel interested in this analysis that

the incentives would attract service members who have more education and time

in service. Outside of these two variables, however, no other demographic

24
Table 10

Statistically Significant Background Differences for Each Decision Group

by Rank Group

Enlisted

No statistically significant differences between decision groups (p < .05).

NCOs

Yes group: Greater family income Yes group = $18,783.78

Maybe group = $16,789.47

No group = $16,727.75

Yes group: Greater time in USAREUR Yes group = 2.27 years

(this tour only) Maybe group = 1.54 years

No group = 1.51 years

Yes group: Greater percentage volunteered Yes group = 58%

for USAREUR tour Maybe group = 34%

No group = 22%

Officers

Maybe group: Lower family income Yes group ='$29,791.66

Maybe group = $25,204.08

No group = $29,705.88

Maybe group: Less time in USAREUR Yes group = 1.94 years

(this tour only) Maybe group = 1.43 years

No group = 1.89 years

Maybe group: Greater percentage volunteered Yes group = 84%

for USAREUR tour Maybe group = 43%

No group = 58%

Variables considered: age, length of marriage, number of children, time in

j 2 ' service, education, family income, time served in USAREUR this tour, number of Vx "!previous PCSs to USAREUR, volunteered for USAREUR tour, and the distribution

of grades within each rank group.

Statistical significance level was p < .05.

25
variables were available that could be directly used to determine "quality"

differences among the three decision groups. An alternative way of looking

at the influence of demographic variables was to determine whether there was

any relationship to the attractiveness of the incentives for the "maybe" group

within each rank group. The statistically significant data from this analysis

are reported in Tables 11A and 11B. Meaningful data appeared to be limited to

the following: (1) less educated enlisted men are willing to extend for the

$100/month.incentive; (2) NCOs with less time in service are more willing to

extend for a job change; and (3) more senior officers required greater financial incentives than younger officers.

Quality of Family Life and Community Variables

Related to Decision to Extend

The inclusion of the Incentive Survey as part of the Family Survey also

allowed investigating the relationship between the perceived quality of family life and support provided by the community with respect to decision to

extend. The first of these factors to be evaluated was degree of satisfaction

in terms of Army life, family life, and housing in USAREUR. The relationship

of these variables to the three decision groups is shown in Figure 9. As can

be seen in this figure, there is a clear (and statistically significant) rela-

*tionship between the decision to extend and these three areas of satisfaction,

with the degree of satisfaction becoming less as the decision to extend moves

from the "yes" to the "no" category. The difference in the level of satisfaction, however, is less pronounced with respect to satisfaction with housing.

The results of the "maybe" decision group fall midway between the results

of the "yes" and "no" groups. The incentives, as a result, could be~viewed by

the "maybe" decision group as one means of compensating for the lack of satisfaction in these areas. A similaranalysis was run on the responses of the

spouses within each of the three decision groups. The pattern of responses

was similar to those in Figure 9 for the service member, with the following

exceptions. The spouses in the "yes" and "maybe" decision groups were somewhat more satisfied with family life. With respect to Army life, however, the

spouses were uniformly less satisfied for all decision groups. With respect

to housing, the spouses in the "yes" and "no" groups were more satisfied than

those in the "maybe" group.

The results of a more detailed evaluation of the quality-of-life factors

* underlying satisfaction are presented in Tables 12A and 12B. The responde-.s

* to the family survey were asked to evaluate 32 separate items pertaining to

the quality of family life (e.g., spouse happiness, children's happiness,

amount of time with children, etc.), and the quality of community services

(e.g., commissary, youth program, medical/dental services, etc.). These two

groups of items could be considered related to intrinsic (family life) satisfaction and extrinsic (community life) satisfiers, respectively. The respondents were asked to evaluate each item relative to their last assignment before

coming to USAREUR, in terms of whether the experiences associated with each

item were considered much worse than, just as bad as, just as good as, or much

better than their last assignment. Each decision group was compared with

respect to the number responding "much worse than," and also in a separate

analysis with respect to "much better than." The purpose of selecting out

these extremes was to identify "problem areas" and also "strong points" of

26
Table 11A

Incentives That Are Statistically Significant Relative to Selected Background

Variables of the Enlisted and NCO Rank Groups in the "Maybe" Decision Group

Enlisted

For the enlisted group, less educated SMs are more willing to extend for the

$100/month bonus.

A Education $100

Lowest third: Some high school/High school GED 42% willing to extenid

Middle third: High school graduate 13% willing to extend

Top third: Some college/College graduate/ 24% willing to extend

Trade-Vocational school

Older enlisted SMs indicate less willingness to extend for the $50/month, $100/

month, and $1,000/year bonus.

Age $50 $100 $1,000

17-20 years 27% 55% 64%

21-25 years 1% 21% 24%

26-30 years 8% 13% 36%

NCO group

Middle-education-level NCOs indicate more willingness to extend for the job

change option than either the lower- or upper-level education NCO groups.

Education Job change incentive

Lowest third: Grade school/Some high school/ 36% willing to extend

High school GED

Middle third: High school degree 49% willing to extend

Top third: Trade-Vocational school/Some 32% willing to extend

graduate work/Graduate degree

Those NCOs with more time in service report greater willingness to extend for

$1,000/year and a trip to the point of debarkation. Thob, with less time in

service report a greater willingness to extend for a job change.

$1,000 willing Trip to the point Job change

Time in service to extend of debarkation willing to extend

3-6 years 23% 19% 53%

6-10 years 26% 35% 39%

10+ years 28% 39% 32%

27
Table 11B

Incentives That Are Statistically Significant Relative to Selected Background

Variables of the Officer Rank Group in the "Maybe" Decision Group

Officer

Middle age group officers (26-40 years) report greater willingness to extend

for the $200/month and $2,000/year incentives than do younger and older

officers.

Age $200/month $2,000/year

21-25 years 25% willing to extend 0% willing to extend

26-30 65% 53%

31-40 59% 59%

41-50 17% 25%

Variables considered: age, education, time in service, and grade distribution

within each rank group.

Statistical significance level was p < .05.

28
04

44i

>1

0 

1

00

c >-

0

o xo0

-4

U,

294
Table 12A

USAREUR Community Life Elements Seen as Either Better or Worse Than Previous

Assignment by Each Decision Group

Items selected as being either

relatively better or worse by

one or more of the decision

groups compared to their Much better* Much worse**

previous assignment Yes Maybe No Yes Maybe No

1. Your present housing 0.23 0.14 0.16 0.35 0.49 0.49

2. Your present neighborhood 0.24 0.14 0.10 0.25 0.36 0.42

3. PX 0.15 0.05 0.05 0.39 0.66 0.70

7. Cost of living 0.25 0.15 0.15 0.23 0.34 0.38

8. Being able to travel around and

see new places u.58 0.38 0.34 0.09 0.23 0.32

9. Opportunity to eat out with

family and friends 0.39 0.16 0.17 0.74 0.24 0.31

14. Children's happiness 0.15 0.05 0.05 0.08 0.24 0.22

15. Spouse's happiness 0.27 0.11 0.07 0.07 0.37 0.46

16. Military member's satisfaction

with his/her job 0.34 0.15 0.10 0.11 0.42 0.58

17. Amount of time parents have

with their children 0.14 0.04 0.05 0.28 0.56 0.57

18. Chances of promotion/advancement 0.18 0.07 0.09 0.10 0.24 0.36

21. Quality of "unit morale" 0.17 0.10 0.06 0.17 '0.43 0.53

29. Amount of crime 0.50 0.38 0.30 0.05 0.12 0.23

30. Quality of marital relationship 0.28 0.19 0.20 0.05 0.14 0.24

Items being rated as neither better

nor worse between decision groups

relative to last assignment

5. Child care services 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.38 0.49 0.50

25. Fear that family members will

be "caught" in a war 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.46 0.51 0.57

*The "yes" group reported these items to be relatively much better than the

"maybe" and "no" groups at a statistically significant level (p < .05).

**The "maybe" and "no" groups reported these items to be relatively much worse

than the "yes" group at a statistically sigiificant level (p < .05).

30
life in USAREUR. As a result, two different statistical comparisons were obtained for each item. The data reported in Tables 12A and 12B are grouped according to statistically significant differences found for each item between

each of the three decision groups. The data reported for each item represent

the percentage of each decision group selecting that response option.

Table 12B

USAREUR Community Life Elements Seen as Only Relatively Worse Than Previous

Assignment by Each Decision Group

Items selected as being only relatively worse

by one or more of the decision groups than Much worse*

previous assignment Yes Maybe No

4. Commissary 0.37 0.63 0.71

6. Medical/dental services 0.24 0.40 0.42

10. Quality of Army Community Service Program 0.12 0.21 0.30

11. Quality of recreation programs (theaters,

gyms, crafts, etc.) 0.28 0.55 0.57

12. Chances for spouse to find a job 0.28 0.41 0.49

13. Quality of children's education 0.19 0.25 0.35

19. Quality of military training to keep the

unit ready 0.09 0.18 0.33

20. Quality of leadership in the Army units

here to keep the unit ready 0.15 0.25 0.43

22. Unit readiness to act in defense of the

U.S. and our allies in Europe, 0.07 0.15 0.23

23. Fear of military member going to war 0.20 0.33 0.40

24. Youth activities 0.19 0.32 0.43

26. Use of NCO/Officers Club 0.22 0.32 0.39

27. Quality and number of friendships 0.13 0.28 0.38

31. Quality of chaplains' programs 0.05 0.12 0.17

32. Quality of church/synagogue services

and activities 0.07 0.15 0.22

*The "maybe" and "no" groups reported these items to be relatively much worse

than the "yes" group at a statistically significant level (p < .05).

Some of the quality-of-life items were reported as being relatively "much

better" by the "yes" decision group, and relatively "much worse" by the "no"

and "maybe" decision groups. This first set of items is shown at the top of

Table 12A. Of particular interest is that the items that fell into this group

were primarily related to intrinsic satisfaction. In general, the "yes" decision group had a higher percentage reporting "much better," while the "maybe"

and "no" decision groups had a higher percentage reporting "much worse" in the

second of the two analyses. The percentage of responses in the "maybe" decision group, however, were not as high as those for the "no" decision group

in the later analysis.

31
The community life items, shown in Table 12B, were only reported as being

relatively "much worse." A relatively higher percentage of individuals in the

"no" and "maybe" groups reported "much worse" than did members of the "yes"

group. Once again the percentage of negative responses of the "maybe" decision

group is not as high as those for the "no" decision group. The responses of

all three decision groups were similar in regard to the "much better" response

option for this group of items. The items in this group are primarily related

to community support services or the extrinsic satisfiers.

The above data indicate that the "yes" decision group is relatively more

satisfied with family intrinsic issues in USAREUR than the "maybe" and "no"

groups. They are also less dissatisfied with extrinsic factors than the

"maybe" and "no" groups, but not necessarily more satisfied in this area. The

"maybe" and "no" groups, on the other hand, report a statistically higher number of responses for the "much worse than" option relative to the "yes" group.

This response pattern extends to extrinsic community support services as well

as intrinsic family issues. While the responses of the "maybe" group are not

as extreme as the "no" group for these two groups of items, it appears that

their more negative view of USAREUR also generalizes to all facets of USAREUR

life.

One area of the Family Survey dealt with expectations about USAREUR, specifically whether experiences were better, the same, or worse than expected.

The responses to each of these three options were averaged, yielding a mean

value for each decision group, as shown in Table 13. This departure from presentation of item response percentages was taken to simplify the presentation

of the data. Asterisks are used to indicate where the groups differ significantly from each other. The experiences of the "no" decision group were found

to be worse than expected with respect to "a chance for the family to enjoy

and appreciate living in a foreign country," a "chance to travel in Europe,"

and with respect to "increased chances of advancement and promotion for military member." The experiences of the "yes" group were found to be better than

expected for seven of the nine expectations items. The two items not included

in this pattern were responded to in a similar manner by each of the three decision groups. These items are "quality of schools for kids" and "quality

medical/dental services for family." For these two items, the expectations

of all three decision groups were basically met.

The influence of community size (large, medium, and small) on the decision

to extend is shown in Table 14. The "yes" responses are somewhat equivalent

for the medium and large communities. They are 50% fewer, however, for the

small community, where a higher percentage of "no" responses occur. The "maybe"

responses decrease gradually as community size increases. It would appear that

the smaller communities have a negative influence on the decision to extend.

However, the smaller communities also have a higher percentage of enlisted personnel as shown in Table 4, and as shown in Table 5, enlisted personnel are

less willing to extend. As a result, community size alone cannot be considered the decisive factor.

32
0 ~

04

0

4 $4

0 0 C ~ ~ C14 

Caj r4 OD CA 11 '%D r, OD OD'i(

4') 0 0n 0 0 00d

0c

04 044 0

0 0)

o 04 1 r

0 t4

01 0

4) 0 to 04

C) 0 4 0.C

04 04 0$

Ch H04

0 0 - rA0W

0 0 ~~ ' ' at o i- V - F5 

0a 0 1a

W0 t

Ca 0Ca 

o It) 0

t) 0, 0 r. 1-44-

V ~ U) Ca$4 -H to A U) 0 0 ~ 0

0 >1 H1 H1 p1 p H 0 0%

fu $40 $4I *H a

a) Vt 4E w0 H3 4

4-4 - H 

or m- $4 W$ 4) 004 r 4-) 0 0 0 H1 lq0 *,-4> >i 1 wH p k t U4.3 44i V4. .14 U) 4 0 1 oll $4 4J - *. ) d E4 o1 . 4- a-) 0 0 r- 00-r.4-4 .4-4 4-4 . 4

Ca H H 1 0 44 ) W rj- H, *-40 4 U ()O .e-4 >1 z 0 >U CU04 >U$ (d W Ca04$-4~ M~ r. rd ( - 0 04

ri 04. rz rrrz0 $ 4 -4 r 1 > 1 - 04 V c j r4 Co Co 4 E40.1 1

0 * ) 4 a) 4. . k 1 a) >4 4- K C.4 - t-J L0 0 0' Co 0'4 4' r

0 40) E: V 4 CdAl ( (a )33
Table 14

The Relationship Between Community Size and Decision to Extend

Decision Small Medium Large Row Row

group community community community total percentage

Yes 60 96 35 191

(Column %) (13.5%) (24.3%) (26.5%) 19.6%

Maybe 231 192 57 480

(Column %) (51.8%) (48.6%) (43.2%) 49.3%

No 155 107 40 302

(Column % (34.7%) (27.1%) (30.3%) 31.1%

Column

total 446 395 132 973

Column % 45.8% 40.6% 13.6% 100%

Perceptions of the Value of a USAREUR Tour and Factors That Would

Influence the Decision to Extend

Two separate questions were added at the end of the Incentive Survey to

determine whether the respondents regarded a USAREUR tour as being good for

their career, and what they perceived as the "one thing" that would stop them

from extending in USAREUR. The responses to each of these questions were

calculated for each of the three decision groups. The results as shown in

Table 15 indicate that the perception of a USAREUR tour as being good for

one's career is influenced by rank as well as the decision to extend. The

"yes" group has the most positive responses, with the "no" group once again

reporting the fewest positive responses. Within these decision groups, however, the responses differ by rank. In particular, the officers see a USAREUR

tour as having more career value than the enlisted personnel who have the lowest response in the "yes" and "no" groups.

The respondents picked the one reason that would stop them from extending

from a list of five choices. The results for ranks within each decision group

are shown in Table 16. The results for the "no" decision group are of particular interest. Officers cite family reasons as the most important reason for

not extending, while enlisted and NCO personnel cite job-related reasons.

Money has little or no role with respect tothis decision. This same pattern

of results is evident for the "maybe" decision group, but becomes less pronounced for the "yes" decision group. However, family reasons and job-related

reasons are the most frequently cited reasons for not extending for all groups,

with money reasons playing a minimal role. These data reinforce the view that

financial incentives serve as a compensating mechanism rather than being the

34
4-4 0 04-4 000 0

'44 *4.4 * 0

04 0 04 co 04 0 4~c Z1 N 

0 0

o ap *p Ch 0 *a a CO w- ri 0 0 0 0j *~0 r Mc

w) ) 0 i)U *.*

S-i C Z $4 rj C) tA (-' - i

W ) i 4) 

UC V

0 >1 rA1.

z *p *p .,4 d CP c H* N Ci o -- CC) (Y )0N 

5.4 C4 N C A11D

4) >1

5.40

t.4 44 11 -- 4.4 CN (A m 0

044- W C 0444 . 0

') 0 0 N N4 00 Nv4 10

0 0 r- N 4) 0 LA.-M

0 S 0

d )0 0 04 00 0 0C4O

.,I U 0 4-)

4) z I0 0 0 W O OD CmCN 

U) 4) Ln 4)(

4)dC

Nd N- W...4 N n )t LA '

4) *p *p * apa 44 N- m' 44 o) in D o ob

44I 0 '44 * * * C)' 04 0 N 4J 1340 01

03 co U-C) 0 L

U)0 0

$)54 'C)5.

0)0

0 0 0

.,1 0 Ln LA -HO O %DOD LA

4) U 4)

0 'o 'C) A 04

0 U) r.l

U) w W dCP rl. 4) a d w0 >IH r- .- I r4H W'.D 'W

4) * 4- C4 8 4 C0

0

W404 0 a)

) 0 r. (dl 04

w04 (n0

40 () w.4. :j 0 w W w 0C4 0 0 a) 0 0 fu r_ LA 4)U OS4 4)VW 0 5.-H44)0

4C 0 ') (ID 4 )

4) 4)) Q) U)q. 4) u O) V 14-

HO c n 4) U) A4H *H )nI4)

9 1z 2

4) 4 ) 0 4iJ 4) r ( ))0 0

35
solution to a problem of financial need. This also helps to explain the important incentive value of a job change and a trip home.

DISCUSSION

The two main variables addressed in this research were decision to extend

and rank. The service members who would extend without incentives (the "yes"

decision group) represent 20% of the total sample, The service members who are

unsure and would consider extending but only for incentives (the "maybe" decision group) represent 50% of the total sample. The remaining 30% represent

the service members who would not extend even for incentives (the "no" decision

group). As rank increases the willingness to extend increases, -:ith officers

representing the largest percentage of respondents in the "yes" decision group.

Conversely, enlisted personnel represent the largest percentage of respondents

in the "maybe" decision group. The rank groupings are about equally divided

in the "no" decision group. This latter finding reinforces the somewhat clinical nature of this group. Their pervasive dissatisfaction in USAREUR may be a

perceptual manifestation rather than being related to any Army considerations

per se. This point is elaborated later in this discussion.

Within each decision group, the rank groups are equally attracted by the

incentives offered. As the financial value of the incentives offered increases,

the percentage of service nembers who would consider extending increases in a

proportional manner. Similarly, there is a statistically significant difference between each decision group in terms of its willingness to extend for the

financial incentives. As would be expected, the highest percentage of service

members who would accept a financial incentive fall in the "yes" decision group

and the least in the "no" decision group. One might ask why the "yes" decision

group would respond in an increasingly positive manner as the level of financial incentives increases, since they plan to extend in any case. One explanation can be viewed in terms of resistance to extension. The "yes" decision

group has no resistance to extending. The financial incentives simply become

more attractive as they increase in perceived value. The "no" decision group,

however, can be viewed as having the highest resistance to extending. This

group responds, nevertheless, in a small but increasing manner as the level of

the financial incentives increases. The responses of the "maybe" decision

group fall between those for the "yes" and "no" decision groups. In this respect their resistance is less than that of the "no" decision group, but more

than that of the "yes" decision group.

The most interesting finding in the data ic that the above decision

groups represent three relatively distinct family groups in. terms of their

satisfaction with life in USAREUR. These three groups were initially identified with respect to their plans for extending in USAREUR. However, it became apparent from their responses to the larger Family Survey that their

decision to extend was closely related to a large number of factors associated with life in USAREUR.

Members of the "yes" decision group are relatively more satisfied with

* their family and Army life and their housing than the other decision groups.

Their experiences in USAREUR were closer to their expectations. When compared to their assignment before coming to USAREUR, members of the "yes" decision group are relatively more satisfied than the other decision groups

36

- t i-EP , m... V > . V1 . . r ,. ..
with their family life. A higher percentage of service members in the "yes"

decision group also sees USAREUR as being good for an Army career. The "no"

decision group is dissatisfied with almost all facets of their USAREUR tour,

including the family and community support variables surveyed. In particular,

their experiences did not meet their expectations with respect to life in

Europe and travel opportunities, and they do not see a USAREUR assignment as

being good for an Army career. They are also relatively more dissatisfied with

their family life and community support services in USAREUR. The responses of

the "maybe" decision group fall midway between those of the "yes" and "no" decision groups. Despite these differences, the service members in each of the

three decision groups have the same demographic background characteristics.

In particular, there are no differences with respect to age, time in service,

education, and the distribution of grades within each rank group.

The responses of the three decision groups were not only consistently

different with respect to the above issues, but in most cases were found to be

different at a statistically significant level. In view of these differences,

the "yes" and "no" decision groups could almost be viewed as extreme and "clinically" different groups of people. They appear to be fixed in their views,

with their respective perceptions generalizing to almost all facets of USARER

life. The fact that the three rank groups are equally distributed in the "no"

decision group also lends to this interpretation. It would appear that persons in the "no" group have a similar type of attitude that does not like change

or the need to cope with cultural differences. For whatever reason, such persons maintain a negative perception of all USAREUR-related experiences. It is

possible that no combination of incentives or policy changes may in any appreciable sense overcome the negative attitudes of these individuals.

The next interesting findings in the data are the factors that geem to

influence satisfaction or dissatisfaction. The "yes" group is relatively more

positive about their family life, while the "no" group is relatively more dissatisfied with not only family life but community support services as well.

This finding is consistent with Frederick Herzberg's Motivation-Hygiene Theory

that was formulated to explain job satisfaction/dissatisfaction.3 Briefly

stated, the theory suggests that factors related to satisfaction are separate

from the factors that lead to dissatisfaction. It postulates that intrinsic,

psychological growth factors (motivations) are related to satisfaction, while

external support (hygiene) factors are related to dissatisfaction. The lack

of intrinsic factors does not lead to dissatisfaction, but only the lack of

satisfaction. Similarly, the presence of positive external factors does not

cause satisfaction but only the lack of dissatisfaction. The impact of the

motivation and hygiene factors is not ;ompletely exclusive, however. The lack

of intrinsic motivators can cause a degree of dissatisfaction but not to the

same extent as the lack of external factors. The presence of external factors

may affect satisfaction but only to a slight degree. The results of this research reflect the predictions of this theory. As shown in Table 12, the "yes"

group is relatively more satisfied with the intrinsic or family variables above.

The "no" and "maybe" groups are relatively Tore dissatisfied with both family

issues and community support services. These results have several implications.

First and foremost is the fact that family issues, as well as job issues, are

3The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In Dunnette, M. D., Handbook of

Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Rand McNally, 1976.

37
the primary determinants of satisfaction or dissatisfaction for the families

in USAREUR. Community support services, as well as financial status, can contribute according to this theory to dissatisfaction. The fact that the "yes"

group expressed less dissatisfaction with community support services implies

that some of the negative attitudes of the "no" and "maybe" groups may have

generalized to this area. Beyond a certain point, however, the level of community support services will not create satisfaction per se. The implications

of these findings are that other things being equal the greatest return on investment for family satisfaction will be in those areas that directly impact

on the quality of family life and personal fulfillment on the job.

The "maybe" group represents the target of opportunity with respect to

any incentive program. This group, as noted earlier, represented 49.5% of the

family members surveyed. With respect to rank groups, 61% of the enlisted, 48%

of the NCOs, and 39% of officers fell into this group. However, the actual

percentages of the married and accompanied service members within these same

rank categories in USAREUR are 10%, 44%, and 52%. This is due to the fact that

the number of married service members increases as rank increases. As a result, a higher percentage of the married personnel in the lower ranking groups

will be attracted by an incentive program.

As noted earlier, the incentives value utilized must attract a percentage

of service members that is higher than the break-even point. This refers to

the fact that unnecessary costs would be incurred by paying incentives to those

service members who would have extended anyway, which must be deducted from the

PCS savings of those who extend for incentives. The break-even point has been

estimated to be about twice the base rate or the percentage of service members

who extend voluntarily. The actual tour extension base rate for married and

accompanied personnel in USAREUR needs to be ascertained from the extension

records. However, the base rate for these individuals can be estimated by the

percentage of persons who indicated that they "planned" to extend their current

tour, as mentioned under Data Analysis in the Methods section. This figure is

approximately 16% for married and accompanied service members, which would make

the break-even point at 30%. In other words, an incentive value must be selected that will attract 32% or more of the service member population in order

to be cost effective. Using this value relative to the data presented in

Figure 8 for the "maybe" decision group indicates the following: $200/month

or $2,000 and $3,000/year could increase the potential extension rate above

the estimated break-even point. The actual financial value used, however,

should be picked relative to the desired gain in extensions at or above the

actual break-even point.

As might be expected, $3,000/year attracts the highest, percentage of individuals who indicate willingness to extend relative to the incentives offered.

Space-required airline tickets for the family to either (1) the point of embarkation or (2) the home of record, plus 30 days noncharged leave for each of

these options also will exceed the break-even point for the "maybe" group. A

trip to home of record, however, is much mqre desirable to the service members

in this decision group. of some interest also is the fact that a job change

has a high incentive value for enlisted and NCO service members that is comparable to some of the financial incentives in terms of attractiveness.

The information contained in Figure 8 provides the necessary information

to conduct a cost analysis. The financial break-even point should be calculated

38
for each rank category in the "maybe" decision group relative to PCS costs

saved and the cost of incentives that would be paid to the actual percentage

of service members who now extend without incentives. The incentive to be

offered should be selected in terms of the financial value that corresponds

to the extension rate desired for each rank category. This assumes that the

desired gain in extensions falls above the financial break-even point. A trip

back can be considered as an alternative option if its financial cost is equivalent to or less than the financial value associated with the desired rate of

extension. The reader should not lose sight of the fact that these data are

only applicable to married and accompanied service members in USAREUR. The

degree to which the estimated extension rates by incentives found in this research can be extrapolated to the unmarried population and the married unaccompanied population must be determined, taking into account the base extension

rates and PCS costs for these groups.

Of additional interest is the fact that the spouses of the service members are very willing to support a decision to extend in USAREUR: 44.6% fall

in the "yes" decision group as compared to 20.1% of the service members. The

SMs and spouses are equally represented in the "no" decision group, which reinforces the imperviousness'of this group. Otherwise, the attitude of the

spouses can be seen as a positive influence. This influence can only beneficially sway the undecided service members to accept a financial incentive.

The incentive of highest priority to the spouse, like the service member, is

$3,000/year. However, a trip to the home of record is the second priority for

the spouse in the "maybe" group, regardless of the service member's rank.

The data and analyses have been primarily concerned with the relative

attractiveness of financial and other incentives. However, family- and jobrelated reasons are seen by service members in each of the three decision

groups as the two major obstacles to an extension in USAREUR, more officers

indicating family reasons, and more enlisted and NCO personnel indicating

job-related reasons. Money is not seen as an obstacle to extending in

USAREUR by any of the decision groups or rank groups. The implication of

this very important information is that the incentives offered are only compensation for problems in these other areas. The financial incentives offered, as a result, do not get at the underlying problems that influence a

service member's decision to extend. An equal or greater return in extensions

:may be achieved by changes in present practices or new policies that affect

job and family satisfaction. The data reinforce the importance of family

support programs and any initiatives related to job assignment.

39