Research Report 1428

A Profile of Army Families in USAREUR:

Results of the 1983 Families in Europe Survey

Mt Halim Ozkaptan, William Sanders, and Robert Holz

Lf

N

ARI Scientific Coordination Office in USAREUR

Office of the Technical Director

DTIC ELECTE

ODEC 2 41988M

U. S. Army A

bResearch Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

June 1986

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

~~A ' 23 6T4
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

WM. DARRYL HENDERSON

EDGAR M. JOHNSON COL, IN

Technical Director Commanding

Technical review by For

Arthur J. Drucker

M. A. Fischl T'U A"

Hyder-Ali G. Lakhani QUALITY , -----

Shelley A. Thomas a \.,. . ,-

P V

t sp ecial

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 Ave., Alexandria, Virginia 22333-5600.

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

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

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

position, unless so designated by other authorized documents.
UNCLASSIFIED

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When Data Entered)

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE BFREAD INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE COMPLETING FORM

1. REPORT NUMBER 2.GOVT ACCESSION NO3. R.CIII|ENT'S CATALOG NUMBER

ARI Research Report 1428 A i 4. TITLE (and Subtitle) S. TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOD COVERED

A PROFILE OF ARMY FAMILIES IN USAREUR: RESULTS Period ending June 1984

OF THE 1983 FAMILIES IN EUROPE SURVE' 6. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER

7. AUTHOR(s) 6. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(&)

Ozkaptan, H., Sanders, W., & Holz, R.

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT. TASK AREA & WORK UNIT NUMBEIIS U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral 63731A 

and Social Sciences 2Q263731A792

5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22333-5600 2.4.2

I1. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS 12. REPORT DATE

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral June 1986

and Social Sciences 13. NUMBER OF PAGES

5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22333-5600 75

14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME & ADDRESS(It different from Controllnl Office) 15. SECURITY CLASS. (of this report)

Unclassified

IS. DECL ASSI FICATION/DOWNGRADING SCHEDULE

16. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of this Report)

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the abetract entred In Block 20, If different from Report)

IS. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

19. KEY WORDS (Continue on ,evete* aide It neceseary id Identify by block numgber)

Army families .. Quality of life.

Family wellness

Sense of community

Partnership,

2&. A88TWACr (Comtomme s in res N naneeemy d Identify by block tmtber)

-- Family wellness, partnership with the Army, and sense of community were

identified as important Army family issues in the White Paper, "The Army Family,'

issued by the Chief of Staff in August 1983. This report presents the views

and perceptions of over 1,000 Army families in USAREUR, both military members

and spouses, with respect to family life in the Army and more specifically, family experiences associated with an overseas assignment. The data have been -

(continued)

DD I 17 EIT'100U OF N IOV GS IS OBSOLETE UNCLASSIFIED

i SECUI"TY CLASSIFICATION OF ThIS PAGE (When Data Entered)
UNCLASSIFIED

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(Wh- )t.f Enl.#'d)

ARI Research Report 1428

20. (Continued)

organized to serve as a reference source for Arm, planners and decision makers

in their formulation and assessment of proqrams and olicies that impact on

Army families. td

iiSCURI TY CL ASSI FIC.A TION OF T NIS PlI G[(eOn Di Fnered)

)TCS;[ l ~I
Research Report 1428

A Profile of Army Families in USAREUR:

Results of the 1983 Families in Europe Survey

Halim Ozkaptan, William Sanders, and Robert Holz

ARI Scientific Coordination Office in USAREUR

LTC Ford McClain, Chief

Office of the Technical 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

June 1986

Army Project Number Manpower and Personr,.1

20263731A792

Approved for public release: distribution unlimited.

- - - - - o- o '--, r, ,*--

~ ~ * $'~'~ d. * . . .*~* SA
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 

mendations 

the Brief. Upon completion of a major phase of the task, formal recom- for official action normally are conveyed to appropriate military agencies by briefing or Disposition Form.

* 

i

S.%

iv
FOREWORD

1984 was designated as the Year of the Army Family by the Secretary of

the Army, the Honorable John 0. Marsh, and the Chief of Staff, General John A.

Wickham, Jr. This report presents the views and perceptions of over 1,000

Army families in USAREtJR, with respect to family life in the Army and more

specifically, family experiences associated with an overseas assignment. It

addresses the issues of family wellness, partnership with the Army, and sense

of community that were identified as important Army issues in the White Paper,

"The Army Family," issued by the Chief of Staff in August 1983. The data have

been organized to serve as a reference source for Army planners and decision

makers in their formulation and assessment of programs and policies that impact

on Army families.

EDGAR M. JOHNS

Technical Director

Vv

F Aff
A PROFILE OF ARMY FAMILIES IN USAREUR: RESULTS OF THE 1983 FAMILIES

IN EUROPE SURVEY

PREFACE

This report contains the results of a survey conducted in May 1983 of

Army families in USAREUR, in which 1,036 married and accompanied family members, both military member (MM) and spouse (SP), were surveyed. The sample of

families surveyed was representative of the approximately 60,000 families in

USAREUR in terms of rank distribution, combat unit type, and size of military

community. The specific characteristics of the sample relative to the USAREUR

population are described in Appendix A.

The purpose of the survey was to obtain a broad range of information on

family life in the Army and to assess family experiences coming to and adjusting to life in USAREUR. The White Paper, "The Army Family," was issued by the

Chief of Staff in August 1983. While this important policy paper was issued

after the development and administration of the survey, the results of the sur-

* vey have been organized relative to the major issues identified in it.

The survey instrument was a collaborative effort between personnel from

the University of Minnesota and the ARI USAREUR Field Unit. It contains spe-

* cific scales prepared by the University of Minnesota, and questions added by

Field Unit members. Approximately 400 questions were asked. In the following

compilation of data, the scale and the other categories of questions- asked have

been sorted into categories reflective of the White Paper and other USAREUR

specific issues.

The responses of the MM and SP are presented together where the same question was asked of each. However, only averages of each group are compared to

one another. The responses of paired family members are not analyzed per se.

In some cases questions were asked of only one or the other family member. The

data are also organized relative to the enlisted, NCO, and officer groups. As

can be seen by the following tables, the data are highlighted when significant

response differences occur between the MMs of each rank group or the SPs of

each rank group. The data are also highlighted when significant response dif-

* ferences occur between the MM and SP in the same rank group. Often the betweenrank and family member differences within each rank group are more meaningful

than the absolute level of the responses themselves. The following interpretation of the data is based on both of these considerations. Only descriptive

*1 data in percentages are presented. Inferential analyses were not conducted

on the data of different response categories.

The information presented in the following tables is intended to serve as

a reference source for Army planners and decision makers in their formulation

and assessment of programs and policies that impact on Army families. Highlights of the data are discussed in the following sections. The reported resuits are not meant to be conclusive. The reader will gain additional insights

by his or her own inspection of the tabulated data.

vi i
A PROFILE OF ARMY FAMILIES IN USAREUR: RESULTS OF THE 1983 FAMILIES

IN EUROPE SURVEY

CONTENTS

Page

OVERVIEW OF RESULTS ........... ........................... 1

FAMILY SAMPLE DEMOGRAPHICS ............. ........................ 4

Family Characteristics ........................ 4

Family Resources/Employment ............ ...................... 7

Military Member Experience ............ ...................... 9

USAREUR Housing: Type, Acquisition, and Location ... ........... . 10

FAMILY WELLNESS ............... ............................. 12

Family Bonds ............. ............................. 12

Family Patterns of Interaction ....... .................... 16

Role of the Spouse: Traditionalism vs. Egalitarianism . ........ 20

Ability of the Spouse to Cope While the Military Member Is Away . . .. 23

Family Activities ........... ........................... 23

FAMILY PARTNERSHIP WITH ARMY ......... ....................... 26

SENSE OF COMMUNITY ............ ............................ 28

QUALITY OF LIFE ............ ............................. 31

Experiences Relative to Expectations About USAREUR .. . ......... 32

Community Life in USAREUR Relative to Previous Assignment ........ . 34

Community Support Services in USAREUR Relative to Those

of the Previous Assignment ..................... 37

Satisfaction .............. ... ............................ 42

ADAPTATION TO USAREUR .......... . .......................... 44

Predeployment Experiences ......... ....................... 44

Experiences Upon Arrival in USAREUR ....... .................. 46

Aids to Adjustment in USAREUR ........ ..................... 48

Cultural Skills Possessed by Family Members in USAREUR . ........ 49

FAMILY PROBLEMS AND CONCERNS .......... ..................... 51

Army Mission-Related Family Problems ...... ................. 51

Personal Problems Experienced by Army Family Members in USAREUR . . .. 52

Problems Influencing Plans for Extension ..... ............... 55

Sponsor Support ............ ............................ 56

CONCLUSIONS .............. . .............................. 58

ix

S . . v - - , -. -+. .- %,. " - "% , , -. ;% m+ '

%v
CONTENTS (Continued)

Page

APPENDIX A. METHOD, SAMPLING PLAN, AND SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS ...... ... 59

B. REFERENCES ......... ......................... . 65

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Army family sample demographics ........ ................ 5

2. Religious preference and nationality of wife ..... .......... 7

3. Family resources ........... ........................ 8

4. Employment and volunteer activities ....... .............. 9

5. Military member experience in USAREUR ... ............. . 10

6. USAREUR housing: Type, acquisition, and location ....... ... 11

7. Family bonds: Items where agreement indicates family un:.ty

or well-being . . . . . . .... ....... ........................ 13

8. Family bonds: Items where disagreement indicates family

unity or well-being ................... ... 14

9. Positive patterns of family interaction where frequency of

occurrence indicates success ...... .................. . 17

10. Negative patterns of family interaction where lack of

occurrence indicatessuccess ......... .................. 19

11. Sex roles in the family where agreement indicates

traditionalism ......... ......................... .. 21

12. Sex roles in the family where disagreement indicates

egalitarianism ......... ......................... .. 22

13. Ability of the wife to cope with short-term family

separations--resiliency .......... ................... 24

14. Family activities ........ ....................... . 25

15. Family partnership with the Army ................ 27

V.

16. Sense of community ........ ....................... .. 30

17. Family life experiences in USAREUR that were better

than expected ......... ......................... . 32

x

4~ ~~ eV~~V%
CONTENTS (Continued)

Page

Table 18. Family life experiences in USAREUR that were worse

than expected .......... ......................... 33

19. Community life experiences in USAREUR rated much better

than the previous assignment ..... ................. .... 35

20. Community life experiences in USAREUR rated much worse

than the previous assignment ..... ................. . 36

21. Quality of community life in USAREUR compared to previous

assignment ........... .......................... 38

22. Community support services rated much better than the

previous assignment ........ ...................... 39

23. Community support services rated much worse than the

previous assignment ......... ...................... . 40

24. Quality of community support in USAREUR compared to the

previous assignment ......... ...................... 41

25. Key elements of family satisfaction in USAREUR . ........ 43

26. Problems with permanent change of station to USAREUR . . 45

27. Problems experienced following arrival in USAREUR ........ ... 47

28. Aids to adjustment in USAREUR ..... ................. ... 48

29. Cultural skills possessed by family members in USAREUR . . .. 50

30. Army mission-related family problems ... ............. . 52

31. Personal problems experienced by Army family members

in USAREUR .......... .......................... .53

32. Family members' faith in noncombatant evacuation operations

(NEO) ........... .............................. . 54

33. Problems influencing plans for tour extension .......... ... 55

34. Command-sponsored families with a sponsor assigned by rank . 56

35. The nature and extent of sponsor support .. ........... . 57

36. The number of survey sets administered and returned for

each community ......... ........................ . 61

xi

li-po W7
CONTENTS (Continued)

Page

Table 37. Comparison of the percentage married and accompanied

relative to the total married in each rank category

between the sample and USAREUR population ... ........... ... 62 4,

38. Percentage of each rank category in USAREUR in comparison

to the percentage of the married and accompanied in that

rank category ......................... 64

%'%

:M4

.

xi
A PROFILE OF ARMY FAMILIES IN USAREUR: RESULTS OF THE 1983 FAMILIES

IN EUROPE SURVEY

OVERVIEW OF RESULTS

Contrary to expectations and rumor, Army families in USAREUR report being

satisfied with their family life, feel a commitment to the Army, and report

the resiliency necessary to cope with the unique demands of Army life. They

also feel that an Army career can be good for the family. Nevertheless, they

are not fully satisfied with Army support, are somewhat cynical about Army attitudes toward the family, and are not completely happy with Army life. Their

satisfaction with family life in the Army, however, seems to compensate for

these reported shortfalls. In effect, it appears that family satisfaction sustains a career in the Army. Hence, it can be said that when the Army supports

its families it is also supporting itself.

Service members who are married and accompanied represent 27.8% of the

total USAREUR force. As would be expected, a greater percentage of officers

are married than are enlisted personnel: 52% of the officers are married,

while 44% and 10% of the NCOs and enlisted personnel are married, respectively.

The Army families in each rank group are not distributed uniformly throughout

USAREUR: 36% of the officer families are located in the larger and urban communities that have only 6% of the enlisted married families. Sixty-four percent of the enlisted families, on the other hand, are located in the smaller

and rural communities. The relative isolation of the enlisted families is

further compounded by the fact that 45% of them are non-command sponsored,

while only 12% and 3% of the NCOs and officers are non-command sponsored. The

majority of the enlisted personnel live on the economy (58%), while the major-

-j ity of the NCOs (65%) and officers.(85%) have permanent military housing.

In terms of racial group identification, 59% of the enlisted members report being white, with the balance being black (26%) and Hispanic (12%). The

* NCO ranks have a similar race distribution. Ninety percent of the officers,

5 however, report being white, with 5% black and 3% Hispanic. Fifty-three percent of the enlisted members report having completed high school, 40% of the

NCOs report having some college education, and 43% of the officers report haying some graduate school training.

Regardless of the above diversity in the backgrounds of military families,

they report, as a group, a similar and positive view of life in USAREUR. As

would be expected, however, the enlisted families report the most problems

while the officer families report the fewest problems. The differences between

the rank groups are not extreme. Where the differences occur, they range between 10 and 20 percentage points, with the officer families reporting the

higher percentage of positive responses. As one would expect, the nature and

type of problems also differ as age, rank, experience, and financial resources

differ. In this respect, enlisted families report more financial and jobrelated problems. However, the level of satisfaction is generally equivalent

among rank groups in such areas as family life and housing.

The good news in these data is that Army families report unusually hiqh

family bonds and cohesion. The majority of MMs and their spouses either agree

1
or strongly agree to a series of questions that tap this area. For convenience the responses of the spouse are listed immediately after those of the

MM. Ninety-six percent of both soldiers and spouses report "a deep commitment

to each other." Similarly, (92/91%) of the families report that they feel that

members "show their love and affection." The families also report that "no one

could be happier than when we are together" (86/83%), do not feel taken for

granted (82/73%), and have the ability to see the brighter side when faced with

family problems (87/89%). On top of this very positive picture, (53/51%) feel

that as a family they are "a perfect success." It seems clear that Army families, as families, thrive in the Army environment, despite some frustrations

and problems as reported later in this section.

The Army families can also be considered to have a mixture of traditional

and egalitarian values. The MM and spouses, however, do not always share the

same views. The spouse tends to be more liberal or egalitarian. The families

view the MM as the leader (77/67%), and feel that the spouse should accept the

MM's judgment on important matters (71/65%). However, they do not feel that

the MM should have the final word in most of the important decisions (45/40%),

nor that a spouse's place is in the home (26/27%). Of some interest is the

fact that the MM is more willing to place the importance of the spouse's occupation at a level equal to his, while the spouse sees his occupation as being

somewhat more important (52/56%).

Field assignments, alerts, and TDYs place a high premium on the ability of the spouse to cope while the MM is away. The lack of the requisite coping

skills in a spouse can be a source of stress for the MM. The data indicate

that the spouses are quite adept at coping when the MM is on duty, and perceive

their skills in a more positive light than do the MMs: (86/94%) report they

can handle family finances, and (76/84%) report they can handle an emergency.

The spouses also feel they can maintain a positive attitude during family separations (66/78%). As would be expected, the spouses of officers report a

higher ability to cope.

The Army family, despite living in a European environment, seems to spend

free time in a manner equivalent to state-side families. Seventy-one percent

report spending most weekends and evenings at home, with 63% reporting that

they watch TV or listen to the radio as their main form of entertainment.

Fifty percent or more of the officer families, however, report going out a lot

or attending courses. In addition, more officer families report being involved

in sport and recreational activities.

The Army has been viewed as an institution, a way of life, where a partnership must be forged between the Army and Army family needs. Several questions tapped this dimension. The data indicate that the MMs and their spouses

accept this partnership despite some serious misgivings: (71/73%) report a

commitment to the lifestyle and mission of the Army; (83/86%) feel that an Army

career can be good for the family. As would be expected, higher percentages of

officers express these views. The Army is viewed not only positively as an institution but also as being good for the family. This is consistent with the

cohesiveness and family strengths reported earlier. Yet only (40/41%) feel

that they are treated justly, and only (36/43%) feel that the "Army does take

care of its family and wants them to be all they can be." Thus while Army

families thrive in the Army environment, they are somewhat dubious of Army

2
policies. Only (57/67%) feel they can get help for special needs and problems

of the family.

In addition to feelings of partnership with the Army, sense of community

is another and equally important variable when one considers the family in the

context of the Army system. The spouse and family are embedded in the relatively isolated culture of the Army, which also becomes synonymous with American culture when stationed outside of the continental United States (CONUS).

The military community then becomes and forms an important part of the families' environment. In this respect, the results of the survey are not as positive as those found for family bonds and commitment to the Army. Approximately

30% of the respondents respond in a positive way (agree or strongly agree) to

the items touching on this variable and 20% to 30% reported not sure; (35/36%)

reported that the community gave them a secure feeling, with (19/22%) being

unsure; (27/32%) reported that people can depend upon each other in this community, with (38/39%) being unsure; (43/46%) reported that even strangers in

their community would help them in an emergency, with (26/34%) being unsure.

It appears that the Army families, which are frequently uprooted, do not

readily or automatically feel at home in an Army community, but like their

civilian counterparts take their neighbors as they find them.

The primary strengths of the family, it would seem, are derived from the

family itself and in turn their commitment to the Army. Their commitment to

the Army may be a function of the fact that, for whatever reason, their basic

family lifestyles and/or needs are met in the Army environment, despite specific frustrations in one or more areas.

Coming to Europe and adjusting to a foreign culture and environment require considerable personal adaptation skills, even with the considerable institutional support provided by the Army. Ten items were designed to assess

the factors that aided adjustment to USAREUR: The questions were asked of the

spouse only. Ninety-three percent across all rank groups reported that the

support of spouse and family was helpful or very helpful. "Personal attitude"

(thinking positively) was also an important variable, with 86% reporting this

factor. However, officers' spouses reported this variable significantly more

often than the enlisted and NCO families. As would be expected, previous experience was also reported as helpful (91%), although this variable was correlated with rank. Sponsors, when they had one, were reported to be helpful

(47%). What stands out across all rank groups, however, is "support of spouse

and family," which again points out the strength provided by the family during

an important period of change and adjustment, as well as stress.

It appears that while some Army families are undergoing some family stress

in USAREUR, the majority are faring well or slightly better than they did in

their previous assignment: (15/13%) report the quality of their marital relationship as being "much worse than" it was before coming to USAREUR, while

(21/21%) report it as being "much better than" before. However, (80/82%) report their marital relationship as being "just as good" or "much better" than

it was before they came to Europe. Spouse happiness fares less well: (37/33%)

report "much worse than" before, while (14/16%) report "much better than before." Only (57/60%) report "just as good" or "much better" than before.

Children's happiness appears less: (26/26%) of the parents report "much worse

than" before and (8/10%) report "much better than before." On balance (69/70%)

report "just as good" or "much better" in USAREUR with respect to children's

3
happirness. The above mixed picture is in part related to rank. The higher

ranks have the discretionary means to enjoy travel and eating out, and have

more cultural opportunities in the larger and urban communities where they are

located. The responses regarding children's happiness, however, are about the

same for all rank categories.

"A The majority of the families surveyed report being "satisfied" or "very

satisfied" with their family life in ISAREUR (57/65%). Satisfaction in this

respect increases as rank increases. Of interest is the higher satisfaction

reported by the spouse. This pattern also occurs for housing satisfaction

(52/61%), and is about the same for all rank groups. Spouse satisfaction with

Army life, however, is relatively lower (46/51%). The latter results, however,

are strongly related to rank. Enlisted famiies are much less satisfied (32/35%)

than officers (74/74%). These results and those reported earlier imply the preeminence of the family in the value structure and satisfaction of the service

member and his spouse. One could form the hypothesis that family satisfaction

can compensate for dissatisfaction with the Army. In addition, a relatively

happier spouse helps to support an Army career. From another point of view,

one could also say that positive family life is compatible with and sustained

by the Army.

The above information on families has important implications for the Army.

Its success in this area supports reenlistments and reinforces the value of the

new initiative with respect to family support. In effect, and for whatever

reason, families on balance seem to prosper in the Army. This may account for

their high commitment to the Army and their feeling that an Army career can be

good for the family, as well as their willingness to forbear the specific problems that are reported. Their reported commitment to the Army, however, may be

a function of the degree to which the family unit is sustained. Hence, the

Army supports its own best interests when it supports the Army family.

The picture of Army families, however, is not all bright. Problems with

drugs/alcohol (10%), with police (2%), steps toward separation or divorce

(3.9%), thoughts of suicide (2.5%), and extreme anger or abuse (8.7%) are reported. The extent that these statistics parallel those of our society as a

whole are not available. Thus, one cannot attribute these findings to be a

result solely of life in the Army.

FAMILY SAMPLE DEMOGRAPHICS

Family Characteristics

Ideally, estimation of the characteristics of the USAREUR married force

would be done through an extensive archival search of existing personnel records, but a great deal of important family information is not recorded. However, a more comprehensive but less accurate approach for describing the makeup

of USAREUR Army families is provided by the 1,000-family survey population. As

would be expected, the characteristics of Army families differ as a function of

rank. The information in Table 1 provides an overview of the families surveyed.

The data for each rank group can be summarized as follows:

4
Table 1

Army Family Sample Demographics

Demographic profile Enlisted NCO Officer

of sample families M14 SP M14 SP KM SP

Sex

Male 100 0 100 0 100 0

Age

17-25 .72 .78 .22 .32 .06 .11

26-30 .23 .16 .32 .31 .20 .23

31 and over .05 .06 .46 .36 .74 .66

Race

Black .25 .23 .23 .18 .05 .03

Hispanic .12 .14 .09 .07 .01 .01

White .58 .56 .64 .64 .92 .93

Other .05 .07 .05 .11 .03 .02

Education

No high school degree .06 .21 .02 .19

GED .15 .03 .13 .07 .01

High school degree .53 .39 .38 .37 .12

Some college .23 .25 .40 .24 .03 .31

College/graduate degree .02 .12 .06 .13 .98 .55

Other .02 .05 .02 .06 .04

Spouse enrolled in education

program now

Yes .04 .06 .10

Spouse ever served in armed forces

Yes .08 .06 .04

Number of times married

First .89 .77 .90

Length of marriage

0-3 years .72 .26 .17

4-6 years .22 .25 .15

7-10 years .04 .23 .14

11 years .02 .26 .54

*Average years 3.83 7.46 10.38

Number of children

N one .26 .14 .19

One .43 .24 .18

Two or more .31 .62 .63

I5
Table I(continued)

Demographic profile Enilisted NCO officer

of sample families MM SP MM SP MM SP

Percentage of families

with children ages:

Less than 3 years .82 .54 .36

4-5 years .24 .30 .20

6-11 years .24 .52 .57

12-18 years .04 .27 .44

19+ years .08 .12

Spouse working

Yes .27 .40 .40

First USAREUR tour

Yes .85 .38 .65

Have any children left at home:

Yes .01 .08 .11

Enlisted families (E1-E4): Young (3/4 between 17 and 25 years old);

most have been married less than 4 years; have one-child family; most

are high school graduates or better; 85% are serving their first USAREUR

tour; and about 25% of the wives work. Over one third are racial/ethnic

minorities.

Noncommissioned officer families (E5-E9): Most are in their 30s and

early 40s and have two or more children. Over three quarters have a

high school degree or better. only 38% are serving their first USAREUR

tour. Over one third of the wives work. About one quarter of the families are a second marriage, and about one quarter are racial/ethnic

minorities.

Officer families (01-06): Most are in their late 30s; are in a first

marriage with two or more children; almost all are white and college

educated; 65% are serving their first USAREUR tour. over one third of

S. the wives work.

Religious preference and church attendance as well as country of birth of

the spouse are presented in Table 2. As can be seen, most officers are Protestant and attend church more regularly than the enlisted and NCO families. Some

16% of the enlisted personnel and 31% of the NCOs are married to foreign-born

women. In particular, 18% of the NCOs, and 6% of the enlisted and officer

military members are married to German women.

6
Table 2

Religious Preference and Nationality of wife

Enlisted NCO Officer

MM SP MM SP MM SP

Religious preference:

Protes tant .36 .33 .49 .46 .60 .61

Catholic .25 .28 .23 .25 .22 .27

Jewish .01 .01 .01 .01

*Moslem .02 .01 .01

Latter Day Saint .02 .03 .02 .02 .03 .03

Other .22 .27 .06 .21 .07 .07

None .12 .08 .09 .06 .06 .03

How often do you attend church/

synagogue services?

Several times a week or

every week .07 .12 .12 .15 .36 .37

Several times a month .08 .11 .07 .08 .12 .15

Several times a year .21 .20 .18 .24 .19 .23

Infrequently/never .64 .57 .64 .54 .33 .25

(Spouse) Country of birth:

United States .84 .69 .91

Korea .02 .05

Germany .07 .18 .06

Other European .01 .02 .01

Other .05 .06 .02

Family Resources/Employment

The data in Table 3 provide information on several basic types of family

resources. Total family income is one of the most basic assets an Army family

has for coping with the demands of USARELJR life. Income will vary as a function of both the rank of the military member and spouse employment. Personal

transportation is another resource that should aid in coping with life in

USAREUR. As would be expected, as rank increases the likelihood that the f amily possesses a car and driver's license increases. It is important to note

that for enlisted and NCO families, the spouse is much less likely to have a

driver's license. This fact could be a source of problems, particularly with

employment, as the enlisted and NCO families are also primarily located in the

smaller military communities (as shown in Table 6), where public transportation

may be less available. Power of attorney is considered a family resource as it

can allow the spouse to do family business such as signing for housing and

household goods, and the initiation of Deferred Payment Plan (DPP) purchases.

As can be seen from the data in Table 3, about half of all spouses have a power

of attorney presently, and this is roughly equal across rank groups.

7
Table 3

Family Resources

Enlisted NCO Officer

MM SP MM SP M4M SP

Total annual family income

$10,000 or less .45 .08

$10,000-$20,000 .53 .67 .12

$20,000-$30,000 .01 .20 .36

$30,000-$40,000 .01 .05 .52

Average $10,769 $17,189 $29,000

Do you have a USAREUR driver's

license?

Yes .75 .32 .89 .50 .98 .93

Do you have a car? .69 .86 .99

(Spouse) Power of attorney:

Yes .53 .47 .48

Many spouses, and a small percentage of military members, work or "moonlight" either full or part time during their USAREUR tour. Table 4 shows that

"moonlighting" occurs at a low rate among enlisted personnel and NCOs. The

same number of NCO and officer spouses are working in USAREUR as were working

in their previous assignment. However, only half as many enlisted spouses who

were previously working are now working in USAREUR. This appears to be an important difference. Looking at the "Reasons for not working now" question, it

appears that reduced enlisted spouse employment may be due to the lack of jobs

in the more rural areas where these spouses are located, and may also be influenced by problems with transportation or lack of job skills. Employment,

whether half time or full time, does not differ among the ranks. About two

thirds of the working spouses have full-time jobs, and about one third have

half-time jobs. Enlisted and NCO wives most often cite "Paying bills" as the

reason for working, while officer wives report "Personal satisfaction" as the

primary reason for working.

The Army Family Action Plan (Army Family Action Plan, 1984) states that

"the Army philosophy on the use of volunteers has not kept pace with the changing Army." While the need for a better trained and educated volunteer is increasing, the demographic trends indicate that more wives are instead seeking

employment. The Action Plan suggests that a move might be made to have volun-

* teers "officially recognized" as connected to Army units as a motivation to

increase volunteerism. The data in Table 4 present the voluntary activities

that spouses most frequently participate in, such as PTA. Enlisted and NCO

spouse participation is low across all activities, while officer spouses are

much more involved in unit or wives club functions.

8

Will
Table 4

Employment and Volunteer Activities

Enlisted NCO Officer

Military member moonlighting: Yes .11 .11 .03

Spouse employment:

Prior to USA1REUR? Yes .48 .48 .44

Working now? Yes .27 .44 .44

Full time? Yes .67 .76 .66

Half time? Yes .33 .24 .34

* Why working now?

Pay bills .45 .40 .20

Personal satisfaction .22 .23 .44

Self-esteem .04 .13 .17

Keep busy/out .20 .12 .08

Help career .08 .14 .11

Why not working now? (percentage of

those not working)

No job available .24 .17 .02

Young children .34 .44 - .57

Other .42 .39 .40

Volunteer activities (the four most popular)

(percentage participating in each)

ACS .06 .08 .18

PTA .05 .08 .34

Wives Club .05 .08 .55

Unit activities .03 .04 .28

Military Member Experience

In targeting family support needs a basic question is, "How experienced is

the USAREUR married force?" That is, how long have they been with the Army and

L what previous permanent change of station (PCS) experience do they have? The

* data in Table 5 indicate that about two thirds of the officers volunteered to

come to USAREUR, while roughly one third of the enlisted and NCO personnel volell unteered to do so. While most enlisted and 'officers are on their first USAREJR

* tour, most NCOs are on their second tour. With regard to how "settled in" the

* married force is, most of the families sampled have been in USAREUR 1 to 2 years

during the present tour.

A relatively short notice of an overseas assignment may cause additional

hardships on families. The data in Table 5 indicate that about one third of

9
the enlisted members received their PCS orders less than 3 month in advance of

coming to USAREUR, while the majority of all rank groups got them 1 to 3 months

in advance.

Table 5

Military Member Experience in USAREUR

Enlisted NCO Officer

Volunteer to come to USAREUR: Yes .36 .34 .62

Time in service:

Less than 1 year .02

1-3 years .47 .02 .06

3-6 years .40 .15 .14

6-10 years .11 38 .17

More than 10 years .01 .46 .63

How long in USAREUR this tour?

0-6 months .28 .17 .06

6 months-1 year .29 .23 .25

1-2 years .32 .27 .20 2-3 years .06 .22 .39

3-4 years .03 .06 .06

4+ years .02 .06 .04

How many PCSs to USAREUR?

This tour only .85 .38 .65

Two .13 .43 .24

Three or more .02 .19 .10

How far in advance got PCS orders?

Less than 1 month .34 .16 .12

1-3 months .41 .43 .39

4-6 months .18 .33 .37

More than 6 months .08 .08 .12

USAREUR Housing: Type, Acquisition, and Location

Family housing is considered to be one of the most critical issues of family support in USAREUR. In particular, sponsorship, housing wait, and location

of duty assignment all have an impact on the Army family's life in USAREUR.

As can be seen in Table 6, about half of the enlisted and almost all of

the officer families arc command sponsored. As a result, the majority of the

enlisted families must make their own housing arrangements and live on the German economy. In line with this, the enlisted family members must also wait

10
longer before joining the military member in USAREUR. More information on com- mand sponsorship is presented in the section on Sponsor Support.

It is important to be aware that the rank groups are not evenly distributed throughout USARUER. From Table 6, we see that most of the enlisted families are located in the rural German areas. As a result, Army education and

shopping support are not as extensive, and similarly there are fewer transportation, shopping, and cultural services available on the local economy. The

officer families are primarily located in the medium-size and larger military

communities. These communities are located in the more urban and culturally

attractive German areas and have more resources available to facilitate family

adaptation and render family assistance.

Table 6

USAREUR Housing: Type, Acquisiton, and Location

Enlisted NCO Officer

Command sponsored? Yes .55 .88 .97

Present housing:

Temporary .10 .08 .01

Permanent--military on-base .11 .40 .77

Permanent--military off-base .21 .25 .10

Privately owned/privately operated .58 .27 - .12

How long waited in the United States?

Came same time .10 .33 .39

Less than 1 month .03 .02 .03

1-3 months .31 .30 .39

3-6 months .37 .23 .15

6-9 months .17 .09 .03

More than 9 months .03 .04 .01

Average months 3.83 2.68 1.77

Length USAREUR wait for permanent housing:

No wait .32 .19 .36

Less than I month .06 .11 .23

1-3 months .14 .16 .26

3-6 months .18 .21 .08

More than 6 months .31 .33 .07

Community size:

Small .65 .46 .22

Medium .29 .44 .42

Large .06 .10 .36

N.

%"%

A. 11
FAMILY WELLNESS

Family wellness can be thouqht of as a state of mind brought about through

strengths, skills, aptitudes, and attitudes. Because of location in a foreign

environment, stressful events can frequently occur for the Army family in

USARELJR. Previously, Army plans, programs, and policies have focused on basic

family needs or were focused on correcting dysfunctions. The present direction

is to identify what is working well, and the characteristics of healthy families that can be transmitted to those needing assistance.

Family researchers see the healthy family as characterized by flexible

* role relationships and shared power, which promote personal growth and member

autonomy. In particular, the family internal capabilities that have qained

the most attention as determinants of family and individual wellness are adaptability and cohesiveness. Researchers believe that families functioning moderately along these two dimensions are likely to make more successful adjustments to stress (McCubbin & Patterson, 1983).

For the study reported here, family wellness was viewed as a function of

cohesiveness or family bonding. In terms of adaptability, family patterns of

interaction, the role of the spouse (whether traditional or egalitarian), and

the ability of the spouse to cope while the soldier is away were also examined.

Family Bonds

Family bonding or cohesiveness can be thought of as a family bond of unity

and closeness maintained through both positive and negative experiences. Army

families with strong bonds should be better able to face the challenges of Army

life in USAREEJR and to grow and benefit from the hardships and advantages they

experience. The strength of this family bond is usually reflected in the exd tent to which family members show caring for each other, respect each other's

individuality, and empathize with the needs and feelings of each other.

A series of questions, which can be construed as representing family bonds

or cohesion, was asked of both the military member and the spouse. Some of the

questions were phrased in a positive manner requiring agreement to indicate

strong family bonds, while others were phrased negatively requiring disagreement to indicate strong family bonds. The responses to these two different

types of questions are presented in Tables 7 and 8, respectively. A different

pattern of responses occurs between the rank groups relative to the content of

the questions and the manner in which they were phrased. In some cases no rank

differences occur, from MM to MM or from SP to SP. In other cases, significant

response differences occur between the MM and SP within a specific rank group.

The uniformity of responses across ranks and between MMs and their spouses appear to occur for these items tapping important or deep family values. Rank

differences appear to occur for those items where age, experience, or financial

resources may play a role. Significant response differences between spouses

within a rank group seem to indicate value or perceptual differences relative

to their respective family roles and perhaps lack of family harmony. The "internal" family differences also seem to fall within specific rank groups, depending upon the type of questions.

2

V
Trable 7

* Family Bonds: Items Where Agreement Indicates Family Unity or Well-Being

Percentage agreeing with the Enlisted NCO Officer

following statements: MM SP MM SP MM SP

There are times when family members

do things that make other members *8 2 5

unhappy. 79 86 78 8 2 5

We feel our family is a perfect

success. 57 62' 54 52' 46 39'

No one could be happier than our

family when we are together. 89 86 88 * 84 79' 77

I feel good about myself wh~n I sacrifice and give time and energy to

members of my family. 96 98' 96 * 94 97 *90'

When we face problems in our family

we have the ability to look on the

brighter side of things. 85 87 86 89 94' 97'

within our family, we have fair and

just rules that keep things running

smoothly. 87 86 87 85 93 93'

The members of my family make an

effort to show their love and

affection for me. 90 93 93 * 91 96 93

we always feel a great level of love

and affection for each other. 81 80 81 * 77 76 74

The things I do for members of my

family and they do for me make me

feel part of this very important

group. 94 97 94 94 97 97

Our family members have a deep commitment to each other and feel that

family life is very important. 95 98 96 96 97 97

*=Significant difference between MM and SO~ responses within the same rank

group.

=Significant difference of MM or SP responses from MM or SP responses in the

other rank groups.

13
Table 83

Family Bonds: Items Where Disagreement Indicates Family Unity or Well-Being

Percentage disagreeing with Enlisted NCO Officer

the following statements: MM SP M' SP MM SP

Members of my family seldom listen

to my problems and concerns; I

usually feel criticized. 77"1 78 81 * 73' 9411 * 84

Member(s) of my family do not seem

to understand me; I feel taken for

granted. 74' 75 82' * 71 94' * 80

Family members always understand each

other completely. 48' 57' 58' *67' 75' 81'

If our family has faults, we are

unaware of them. 69 75 74 76 89' 88'

When our family faces problems, we

* do not like to take any help from

* friends, relatives, and the

1.community. 55 59 51 56 54 * 72'

* We expect members of our family to

solve their own problems and not

to turn to each other for help. 92 91 93 92 93 * 99'

* Significant difference between MM and SP responses within the same rank

group.

Significant difference of MM or SP responses from MM or SP responses in the

other rank groups.

=Significant difference of MM or SP responses from only the rank group similarly designated by "

As noted earlier, some questions as shown in Table 7 tap deep family val-

*ues and bonds and are responded to uniformly by both family members regardless

of rank. In this respect 90% to 95% of the respondents report "---a deep cornmitment to each other---." Similarly, devotion is expressed by 90% to 95% of

the respondents through such questions as, "---I feel good about myself when I

sacrifice and give time---," and "--- the things I do for my family---make me

gfeel part of this very important group." Such feelings of devotion are perceived as being reciprocated by the respondents. Over 90% indicated that

"---my family makes an effort to show their love and devotion for me." The high

level and uniformity of the responses to these questions indicate a high level

of family unity across all ranks and between family pairs. The consistency of

14
the responses supports the notion that the central family values of love and

devotion transcend occupational and age differences. Regardless of economic

and social circumstances, the key goals and values of a marriage are the same.

Moreover, these values seem to flourish in the Army.

The high level of positive responses to other questions in this section

are also indicative of strong family bonds. Approximately 80% to 90% report

that, "no one could be happier than --- when we are together," and "---when we

face problems, we have the ability to look on the brighter side." A sense of

realism, however, is not lost. Over 75% report that, "---our family members

do things that make other members unhappy." Only 50% report that " --- our f amily is a perfect success." Statistically significant response differences occur across rank groups for these latter questions. A higher percentage of the

enlisted spouses report their marriage as a perfect success than the spouses of

the NCOs, who in turn have a higher percentage of positive re~sponses than the

officer spouses (62%, 52%, and 39%, respectively). Perhaps the younger enlisted

wives are more idealistic in this respect. No statistically significant response differences occur, however, between the MM in each of the rank groups

for this particular question.

The NCO MMs and their spouses have a greater tendency to respond differently from each other to this set of questions. Statistically significant response differences occurred between these family members for one half of the

questions in Table 7. The difference in their respective perceptions may indicate that this group is at greater risk in terms of marital stability.

Questions that were phrased negatively are shown in Table S. A high level

of disagreement with such questions would imply family unity or well-being.

* Accordingly, the percentage disagreeing is shown in this table. OnlY one ques-

* tion has a high level of uniformity between the MMs and SPs in each rank. Over

90% of the respondents disagree wi-th the statement that "---they expect family

members to solve their own problems and not turn to each other for help."

Once again, feelings for family unity are being expressed. However, 50% to 60%

disagree with the statement that they would not turn to friends, relatives, and

the community for help on family problems.

Significant rank differences occur for this set of questions. As rank

increases, a significantly higher percentage of MMs and their SPs disagree with

the statement that "---family members always understand each other completely."

Once again, increasing age or experience may be contributing to a more realistic

assessment. In this respect, more officer families disagree with the statement

that they are unaware of family faults. Of some interest is the fact that as

rank decreases more MMs feel "taken for granted." Similarly, NCO and officer

spouses report being more "taken for granted" than their spouses. Once again,

NCO family members have statistically significant response differences to one

* half of these questions. The responses of the spouses are more negative.

% Findings. Army families, regardless of rank, express feelings of deep

commitment and devotion to each other.

The Army families differ across ranks in describing their marriages. As

rank increases respondents are less inclined to describe their marriages in

idealized terms.

15
NCOs and their wives, while expressing a basically positive attitude, do

differ significantly in their perception of mutual understanding of each

other's problems and concerns.

Family Patterns of Interaction

Family patterns of interaction that support successful adjustments to

stress can be viewed in terms of mutually supporting family roles and quality

of communication. The former occurs when members of the family take on and

fulfill roles and tasks in the family in a way that supports each other and

keeps them functioning together as a unit. Quality of communication that supports stress adjustment has been viewed as "the ability of family members to

listen and express their thoughts and feelings openly and directly to each

other." Families who have the ability to communicate are better able to develop shared goals, resolve conflicts, and organize themselves in a way that

promotes individual member growth, family functioning, and adaptation to Army

* life" (McCubbin & Patterson, 1983).

The Army Family Survey contains a number of items asking how family members interact with each other. While related to family bonds, the questions

fall more in the domain of intrafamily behavior. These questions were asked

of the wives only. Three types of response patterns emerge from the data, as

shown in Tables 9 and 10. First, while all wives respond in a generally positive manner indicating very healthy patterns of family interaction, the responses of of ficers' wives were significantly more positive than the responses

of enlisted and NCO spouses. To almost every question listed at the top half

of Table 9, officer spouses report greater family cooperation, participation,

and self-expression. The second observable pattern is that for certain survey

items NCO spouses report the fewest positive responses relative to those of

the enlisted and officer spouses. These questions deal with "sharing interests" and "doing things together," as well as "feeling close to each other"

or "being supportive of each other." While most NCO wives still agree, a significantly fewer number than the other spouses indicate that each family member has input in major family decisions. This suggests somewhat less flexibility in NCO families.

A third major finding is that a subset of family interaction questions

exists on which there is general agreement across rank groups. These are shown

at the bottom of Table 9. In general, most wives surveyed express equally

positive attitudes to these questions, which deal with knowing each other's

friends and spending free time together. Three of these latter items also

deal with the family's approach to problem solving.

The same patterns of response occur for the questions that are phrased in

a negative context, where an "almost never" response would be indicative of

healthy family interactions. These are reported in Table 10. Officers' wives

give the most positive responses, indicating for example that family members

almost never avoid each other at home. About 25% of the NCO spouses responded

that family members are afraid to say what is on their minds, and that family

members feel closer to people outside the family. In each case, significantly

more NCO spouses indicated lower quality family interactions.

16
Table 9

Positive Patterns of Family Interaction Where Frequency of Occurrence Indicates

Success

--- Where Differences Due to Rank Exist

Percentage reporting frequently Spouse

or almost always: Enlisted NCO Officer

Family members say what they want. 73 72 85'

we approve of each other's friends. 57 57 87'

Family members go along with what the7899'

family decides to do.78991

Family members are supportivre of each

other during difficult times. 87 83" 94"

In our family, it is easy for everyone

*to express an opinion. 69 71 81'

Family members feel very close to each

other. 84 79"1 90"

Family members consult other family

members on their decisions. 53 58 79'

Each family member has input in major

family decisions. 65 54' 63

Discipline is fair in our family. 76 79 90'

Our family does things together. 84" 7418 82

Family members share interests and hobbies

together. 62 56" 72"

=Significant difference of MM or SP responses from MM or SP responses in the II other rank groups.

Significant difference of MM or SP responses from only the rank group similarly designated by "

17

A I 1 5 ' - -*%- i
Table 9 (Continued)

Positive Patterns of Family Interaction Where Frequency of Occurrence Indicates

Success

I., --- Where Differences Due to Rank Do Not Exist

Spouse

When problems arise, we compromise. 6

Our family tries new ways of dealing with problems. 50

Our family gathers together in the same room. 85

Family members know each other's close friends. 80

In our family, everyone shares responsibility. 72

Family members discuss problems and feel good about

the solutions. 66

Family members like to spend their free time together. 76

P..__ __ ___ __ __ __ ___ __ __ __ ___ __ __ ___ __ __ __ ___ __ __ __ ___ ___18_

&k i 2 e.-..- 2
Table 10

Negative Patterns of Family Interaction Where Lack of Occurrence Indicates

Success

--- Where Differences Due to Rank Exist

Percentage reporting almost never Spouse

or once in a while: Enlisted NCO Officer

Family members are afraid to say what is on

their minds. 80 74' 84"

Family members feel closer to people outside

the family than to other family members. 86 77' 87

Family members avoid each other at home. 82 85 941

We shift household responsibilities from

person to person. 53 52 39'

In solving problems, the children's suggestions are followed. 52' 34 29

We have difficulty thinking of things to do

as a family. 63 63 78'

--- Where Differenlces Due to Rank Do Not Exist

Spouse

Children have a say in their discipline. 57

It is difficult to get a rule change in our family. 58

In our family, people go their own way. 83 I It is easier to discuss problems with people outside

the family than with other family members. 71

Family members pair up rather than do things as a family. 75

It is hard to know what the rules are in our family. 69

=Significant difference of SP responses from MM SP responses in the other

rank groups.

=Significant difference of SP responses from only the rank group similarly

designated by "

19
The questions for which there is agreement across the three rank groups

are shown in the single column at the bottom of Table 10. Almost all the wives

responded "alm~ost never" to the statement, "In our family, people go their own

way," while a',out half indicate that children almost never have a say in their

discipline.

Findings. While all wives respond in a generally positive manner indicating very healthy patterns of family interaction, the responses of officers'

wives are significantly more positive.

While the majority of NCO wives report positive attitudes, significantly

fewer of these spouses indicate a sharing of interests and activities with the

spouse, and feeling close to one another.

Role of the Spouse: Traditionalism vs. Egalitarianism

Family researchers have pointed out that "Members of many military families are gradually breaking the bonds of military traditions and stereotyped

sex roles to develop themselves more according to their own goals, abilities,

and potentials. The contemporary egalitarian family pattern contrasts dramatically with the traditional "companionate" pattern in which the military 4 community molded family life to the requirements of the Army profession"

(McCubbin & Patterson, 1983).

Table 11 presents a number of survey items that cover values or behavior

associated with both family traditionalism and egalitarianism. In general

Army families accept the traditional position that the husband is the leader

of the family. However, these families also disagree with the traditional

notion that "A woman's place is in the home" and that "The wife should not

work outside the home unles it is an absolute financial necessity." Army f amilies are more evenly split on a number of other traditionalism versus egali- tarianism issues raised in the family survey, and some interesting rank group and MM vs. SP differences occur.

Wives of enlisted soldiers are more willing than NCO spouses to agree

that "The wife should trust and accept the husband's judgments on important

decisions." NCO spouses are in turn more willing to agree with this statement

than are officers' wives. Officers and their wives differ significantly on the

question of decision-making roles, with officers' wives advocating decisionmaking equality more than any other rank group of service members or spouses.

Across all rank groups the soldiers agree that "The husband is the leader of

our family," while spouses uniformly accept this viewpoint to a significantly

lesser degree.

The enlisted spouses rate the importance of the soldiers' occupation

higher than the soldier does, while officers' wives report (at a significantly

higher level) that the wife should not work, outside the home if there are

young children. This more traditional view may be possible for then because

of the higher income level of their spouses. An interesting finding is that

all family members, regardless of rank, feel that household chores should be

shared if both family members are working.

20

% '>~
Table 11

Sex Roles in the Family Where Agreement Indicates Traditionalism

Percentage agreeing with the Enlisted NCO Officer

following statements: MM SP MM SP MM SP

In our marriage, the husband is

the leader of our family. 78 * 69 76" * 68 85" *64

For us, the husband's occupation

is always regarded as more important than the wife's. 42 47' 50 * 56 72' 65

The wife should trust and accept

the husband's judgments on important decisions. 80' 75' 71' 66' 62' 47'

If there are young children, the

wife should not work outside the

home. 49 42 52 *42 61 55'

For the following, item agreement indicates egalitarianism.

Percentage agreeing with the Enlisted NCO Officer

*following statement: MM SP MM SP MM SP

If both of us are working, the

husband should do the same amount

of household chores as the wife. 78 82 83 84 80 84

*=Significant difference between MM and SP responses within the same rank

group.

Significant difference of KM or SP responses from MM or SP responses in

the other rank groups.

=Significant difference of MM or SP responses from only the rank group similarly designated by "

21
Table 12 presents items worded so that the respondent must disagree to express egalitarian as opposed to traditional family member role values. Officers' wives are less willing to accept the notion that wives should still be

responsible for running the household if they work outside the home. Similarly,

these spouses disagree with their mates as to who should have the final word on

important decisions. Spouses of enlisted soldiers disagree significantly with

other spouses in this regard, holding a more traditional view. They also disagree less with the notion that the wife should be more willing to go along

with the husband's wishes.

Table 12

Sex Roles in the Family Where Disagreement Indicates Egalitarianism

Percentage disagreeing with the Enlisted NCO Officer

following statements: MM SP MM SP MM SP

Even if the wife works outside the

home, she should still be responsible for running the household. 56 50 55 51 50 * 66'

N" The husband should have the final

word on most of the important decisions in our family. 44" 48' 58" 60 53 * 68

In our marriage, the wife should be

more willing to go along with the

husband's wishes. 42' 49' 58 63 61 64

I believe that the woman's place is

basically in the home. 75 73 73 76 74 70

In our family, the wife should not

work outside the home unless it is

an absolute financial necessity. 66 * 82 70 * 82 77 79

*=Significant difference between MM and SP responses within the same rank

group.

=Significant difference of MM or SP responses from MM or SP responses in the

other rank groups.

=Significant difference of MM or SP responses from only the rank group similarly designated by "

22

Vk &I"
Findings. Army families accept the traditional position that the husband

is the leader of the family, but these families also disagree with the traditional notion that "A woman's place is in the home."

Enlisted spouses hold more traditional views than officers' wives.

The wives have more egalitarian views than the service member.

Ability of the Spouse to Cope While the Military Member Is Away

The process of managing family resources is seen as an important aspect

A, of successful family behavior under stressful situations. The ability of Army

* spouses in USAREUR to cope while the military member is away on field duty or

other assignments falls into this framework. In previous work (McCubbin and

Patterson, 1983) it was argued that members of healthy families had both per-

* sonal skills such as self-reliance, and also learned (trainable) coping skills

that they developed before the family even experienced the stress or event.

These families, for example, prepared for separations by actually obtaining a

power of attorney and tying up all loose ends (e.g., car, home, finances, etc.)

ahead of time.

* The military spouse is often on her own when the MM is away from home on

field duty or TDY. The ability to cope, particularly in a foreign environment,

is important for marital stability and the avoidance of stress on the part of

both family members. The data in Table 13 are revealing from two perspectives.

First, there is a wide discrepancy between the views of the family members,

particularly at the NCO level. Second, there are si.gnificant rank differences

between the military members, as well as the spouses.

Across all rank groups the majority of MMs and wives indicate that the

wives can cope with a short-term family separation quite well. In response to

every item, spouses perceive themselves as being better able to cope during

the service member's absence than do service members.

As noted, rank differences also predominate. As rank increases, a higher

percentage of both the MMs and their spouses report that the wives can cope

well. It may also be true that family separations are less frequent as rank

increases.

Findings. Across all rank groups the majority of M~s and their wives indicate that the wives can cope with a short-term family separation quite well,

though the SP is much more optimistic in this belief.

Also, as rank increases, more of the family members express confidence in

the wife's ability to cope with separations.

Family Activities

Family activities, such as having dinner with friends or getting involved

in recreational activities, can serve to promote physical wellness, family

cohesiveness or bonding, and also the important function of expanding social

networks. Family researchers suggest that social networks are an important

23

ii, -&Ail
dimension of family resources and provide a source of emotional support for

coping with stressful events. By moving beyond the basic family unit the fam-

* ily member can expand the base of both social support and physical resources

available to deal with stressful events.

Table 13

Ability of the Wife to Cope with Short-Term Family Separations--Resiliency

Percentage reporting that spouse

can do these activities okay or

very well during short-term family Enlisted NCO Officer

separation: MM SP MM SP MM SP

Handle/discipline the children 76 * 89 78 * 87 85 * 91

Get the jobs done at home (cook

the meals, do laundry, etc.) 82' * 94 90' * 95 96' * 100'

Get to and use Army and civilian

t stores and services 73' 76' 80' * 88' 92' 97'

. Offer support and encouragement

to children 94 98 95 * 98 95 98

Handle family finances 82" * 93 87 * 94 92" * 99'

Keep busy and do things she values

and is interested in 74' 80' 86' 88' 96' * 99'

Make decisions for the family 86' 91 91' 93 99' 99'

Maintain a positive attitude

toward your being away 52' * 66' 67' * 78' 79' * 94'

'I Handle emergencies (medical, major

breakdown in household equipment,

etc.) 68 * 79 75 * 83 91' 91'

• = Significant difference between MM and SP responses within the same rank

group.

= Significant difference of MM or SP responses from MM or SP responses in the

other rank groups.

Significant difference of MM or SP responses from only the rank group similarly designated by ".

24
The data in Table 14 indicate that officer families are more involved in

activities outside of the home than are enlisted and NCO family members. Officer family members report beinq more engaged in recreational activities and

sports, attending courses, and going out, and also report spending less time

watching TV.

Table 14

Family Activities

military members

Percentage saying "True": Enlisted NCO Officer

We spend most weekends and evenings

at home. 63" 74" 71

Friends often come over for dinner

or to visit. 49 45 42

Nobody in our family is active in

sports, Little League, bowling, etc. 40" 35 27"

We often go to movies, sports events,

camping, etc. 67 451 58

Everyone in our family has a hobby

or two. 72 60' 70

Family members are not very involved

in recreational activities outside

work or school. 50 47 32'

Family members sometimes attend courses

or take lessons for some hobby or interest (outside school). 32 38 64'

Family members go out a lot. 33 32 54'

Our main form of entertainment is watching TV or listening to the radio. 72 66 40'

=Significant difference of MM or SP responses from MM or SP responses in the

other rank groups.

h .. ~Significant difference of MM or SP responses from only the rank group similarly designated by "

A higher percentage of NCO families spend evenings at home, do not go to

the movies, and do not have hobbies. In this respect they appear less active

25

-~~ .- ,..-

29S 32
than enlisted families. Enlisted families, however, report the least involvement in sports activities. This lesser rate of involvement in recreational activities for the lower rank groups may be related to their financial resources

and the lesser availability of recreational facilities in the more rural areas

where they are located.

Findings. Officer families are more involved in activities outside the

home than are either enlisted or NCO families.

NCO families appear less involved in outside activities than enlisted fainilies, except in the area of sports.

FAMILY PARTNERSHIP WITH THE ARMY

The Army Family Action Plan (1984) states in part that

Partnership is a cohesion of the Army and family members based on

mutual understanding of the mission and commitment to each other.

The purpose is to include the needs for independence and dependence

existing between the family and the Army. . . . Partnership, therefore, is a reciprocal relationship, built on moral and ethical responsibilities and statutory and regulatory requirements.

Some key factors discussed in the Army Family Action Plan, which were also coy-

% ered in the Army's Families in Europe Survey are (1) Reciprocal Army-family

commitment, and (2) the need for families to understand the Army mission and

its impact on the family. The results of this analysis reveal that Army famnilies hold a perception or feeling of partnership with the Army, despite some

misgivings. There also appears to be an acceptance of some of the problems of

Army life, in return for the benefits the families derived from the Army. Several interesting trends are apparent in the data shown in Table 15. Once again

rank and family member differences prevail, but not in the direction that one

would expect.

While about 75% of those surveyed reported that their families shared a

commitment to the lifestyle and mission of the Army, significantly more of the

enlisted and NCO wives reported this family commitment than did the military

member. This feeling of family commitment to the Army is even higher for officer families, with no significant difference between the officers and their

spouses.

With regard to perceived reciprocal commitment of the Army to the families, the picture is essentially reversed. While Army families report a high

level of commitment to the Army, they also perceive that this commitment is

not reciprocated. Only about 33% of the enlisted and NCO families and half

the officer families believe that "The Army treats its members and their families justly and fairly," and that "The Army really does take care of its families and wants us to be all that we can be."

.4.

More enlisted wives than soldiers feel that "The Army treats its families

justly and fairly." While the enlisted and officer wives respond similarly in

this regard, fewer officer spouses than officers agreed to this statement. More

enlisted and NCO wives than military members also feel that the Army really does

"I.. 26

% % %jj.j§j:9~ %.
Table 15

Family Partnership with the Army

Percentage agreeing with the Enlisted NC'O Officer

following statements: MM SP MM SP MM SP

Family shares a commitment to the

lifestyle and mission of the Army. 60' * 71 71' * 76 88' 84'

The Army treats its members and their

families justly and fairly. 29' * 40 38' 38" 65' *51"

Army really does take care of families

and wants us to be all that we can be. 33 * 42 34 * 41 49' 49

Even though being in the Army creates

-. .hardships for us, the Army makes every

effort to help us understand why. 31 * 39 35 * 40 48' * 38

Our family feels we have some say

about future military assignments. 37 41 30 33 61' 54'

If we have problems or special needs

in our family, we feel competent we

can get the help we need. 52 * 61 55 59 74' 75'

If conflict between our family's needs

and the Army's needs, there is no

question that the Army comes first. 24' 25' 44 47 49 50

There is no way that being in the

Army can ever be good for our family. 27' 20' 16' * 12' 06' 05'

The military member's career will be

hurt if our family voices any special

needs or frustrations. 52 60' 52 51 36' 43

The Army seems to dictate to spouses

S.,. of military members what they should

and should not do. 64 59 63 61 56 59

My family and I are unsure whether we

will stay in or leave the Army. 59' 63' 44' 44 31' 37

* = Significant difference between MM and SP responses within the same rank

group.

= Significant difference of MM or SP responses from MM or SP responses in the

other rank groups.

: .-. " = Significant difference of MM or SP responses from only the rank group similarly designated by •

27 'V.'

IL M 'A _'
take care of its families. more of the wives in all three rank groups report

that the Army is "making every effort to help us understand hardships." Of special note, more enlisted spouses than military members report that if they have

problems, they can find help. NCO spouses also agree less than the military

members that the Army cannot be good for families. These results, while surprising, can be considered good news for the Army. The spouses apparently appreciate existing Army efforts and can be considered a major resource for maintaining a positive attitude about Army life during difficult times. The factors

contributing to these feelings should be recognized and fostered by the Army.

Rank differences also play a role in the perception of partnership. The

* feeling of commitment by each group increases as rank increases. For example,

60% of the enlisted, 71% of the NCOs, and 88% of the officers report such a

commitment. While rank differences should not be surprising, the high level

of these reports of commitment presents a very positive picture. The perception of fairness also increases across groups as rank increases. The feelings

of the wives, in this respect, across rank groups are somewhat more uniform.

* Enlisted and NCO military members are more cynical than officers about the

statement that the Army really does take care of its families. Also, significantly more officers feel that the Army tries to help people understand the

reason for any hardships. Enlisted families express the least agreement with

the statement "In case of a conflict between Army and family needs the Army

comes first." The NCO and officer families respond uniformly in this regard,

* with about 50% agreeing to this statement. The fact that 50% of these families feel that the Army comes first can be considered remarkable, and another

* sign of commitment.

Thus several factors are operating here. The relatively high commitment

of the military members is significantly exceeded by the wives. There is a

very strong belief that Army life can be good for families. In addition, more

spouses feel that the Army is fair to families than do the service members.

The positive feelings of the wives thus represent a large reservoir of good

will.

Findings. Army families report a high commitment to the Army.

Army spouses report a higher commitment and more positive feelings than

the military member, and feel that Army life is good for families.

At least 50% of the NCO and officer families report that the Army comes

first in the case of a conflict with family needs.

"4 The Army families do not feel, however, that their commitment is reciprocated by the Army.

SENSE OF COMMUNITY

For many service member families the Army community becomes synonymous

with American culture when stationed outside of the United States. "Sense of

community" can be thought of as the situation where people receive support

from their environment and in turn contribute to the common good of the community. The Army Family White Paper argues that the slogan, "The Army takes

care of its own" is not a promise for the institution to provide all of the

28
individual and group support requirements. Rather, it is a challenge for members of the Army community to work together, as equal partners, to take care

of their own and improve the community as a whole (White Paper 1983--The Army

Family). Following this line of thought, sense of community will be examined

from the Army Family Survey data as a perception of support available from the

community, and also the level of family members' involvement in caring for and

improving this community.

The results for sense of community are not as positive as those for family bonds and partnership with the Army. This could be expected in view of

heterogeneity of Army families and frequent moves that must be made over the

course of a career. Family unity and bonds revolve around many different lifestyles and value systems. The fact that family bonds may be sustained in the

Army does not assure the compatibility between different family units within an

area to create a larger sense of community. Nor does the lack of compatibility

between different family lifestyles detract from a sense of partnership with

the Army, when such partnership is engendered by the feeling that the Army

helps to sustain a desired family lifestyle or quality of life.

The results in this section are quite mixed. As can be seen in Table 16,

as many people will agree with a statement as disagree. In some cases, the

"unsure" response will predominate. Only one question elicits significantly

* different responses across each of the three rank groups, and this occurs only

f or the spouses. This statement is, "If I had an emergency, even people I do

not know would be willing to help." The enlisted spouses are significantly

more "unsure" than the NCO spouses, who in turn are significantly more "unsure"

than the officer spouses. The degree of uncertainty not only differs among the

spouses in different ranks, but is also significantly greater than the soldiers

across all rank categories. This one question typifies the results of this

section. The families are uncertain as to how well they can depend upon other

community members. Mutual dependence could be considered to be a vital ingredient of sense of community. The uncertainty increases as rank decreases, and

is uniformly greater for the spouses who must depend on the community to a

greater extent than the soldiers. The only other clear result is that officer

families, MM and SP, are more positive about sense of community across all of

the questions. It should be noted as indicated in the section on demographics

that officer families are more typically located in urban areas and larger

or the normally larger number of cultural interactions that they may have access to, is not clear.

Response differences between the MM and SP groups, when they occur, do not

follow a clear pattern. One exception is that enlisted and NCO wives have a

more negative view of the community as a place to raise children. NCO spouses

also report a lower degree of involvement in the community than do the NC~s,

I but report a greater sense of security.

Findings. A strong sense of community does not exist, with only officer

families expressing a more positive view.

While most officer family members report that they in turn are active and

involved in their community, significantly fewer (less than half) of the enlisted and NCO families report this community involvement.

29
Table 16

Sense of Community

Percentage of people indicating Enlisted NCO Officer

the following responses: MM SP MM SP MM SP

People can depend on each other in

this community.

Agree 20 * 29 21 26 57' 61'

Not sure 45 44 38 * 44 33 29'

Disagree 35 * 27 41 * 30 10' 10'

My friends in this community are

part of my everyday activities.

Agree 52 46 45 48 67' 76'

Not sure 07 10 07 08 02' 03

Disagree 41 44 48" * 44 31" * 21'

I feel useful in this community.

Agree 34 26' 37' 34 67' 67'

Not sure 25 33 26 26 15' * 25

Disagree 41 41 37 40 18' * 08'

My role in this community is to be

active and involved.

Agree 37 30 42 * 38 .57' 54'

Not sure 23 * 34' 21 24 17 17

Disagree 40 36 37 38 26' 29

Living in this community gives me a

secure feeling.

Agree 27 29 30 * 37 63' 61'

Not sure 21 25 19 22 19 18

Disagree 52 46 51 * 41 18' 71'

If I had an emergency, even people

I do not know in this community

would be willing to help.

Agree 35 37 38 * 44 74' 71'

Not sure 28 * 43' 29 * 35' 13' * 21'

Disagree 37 * 20 33 * 21 13 08'

• = Significant difference between MM and SP responses within the same rank

group.

= Significant difference of MM or SP responses from MM or SP responses in the

other rank groups.

= Significant difference of MM or SP responses from only the rank group similarly designated by ".

30

~ .
Table 16 (Continued)

Percentage of people indicating Enlisted NCO Officer

the following responses: M24 SP MM SP MM SP

People here know they can get help

from the community if they are in

trouble.

Agree 33 35 38 39 62' 571

Not sure 40' 45 32 38 27' 35

Disagree 27 20 30 * 23 11" 08'

This is not a very good community to

bring children up in.

Agree 43 *30 39 * 31 20' 21'

Not sure 26 31 23 26 19 20

Disagree 31 39 38 * 43 61' 59'

There is a feeling in this community

that people should not get too

friendly with each other.

Agree 45 42 52 * 46 14' 15'

*Not sure 28 30 23 24 30 29

Disagree 27 28 25 30 56' 56'

*= Significant difference between MM and SP responses within the same rank

group.

= Significant difference of MM or SP responses from MM or SP responses in the

other rank groups.

= Significant difference of MM or SP responses from only the rank group similarly designated by ".

NCO family members hold significantly different views on many of the community support issues investigated, with the wife typically taking a more positive outlook.

QUALITY OF LIFE

For this paper "Quality of Life" will be examined as a function of both

quality of family life, and also quality of community support. Quality of family life information is gained from survey items such as time for family togetherness, job satisfaction, opportunity for travel, financial security, quality of friendships, and quality of the marital relationship. With regard to

5% community support, the quality of services such as the PX, commissary, medical

and dental services, Army community services, recreation programs, youth activities, and clubs will be examined.

31

* ~ ~V
Quality of life will first be addressed in terms of family life; what the

families expected to experience in USAREUR compared to what has actually happened. Second, we present the family life changes that have occurred since

coming to USAREUR, compared to the last assignment. The third section examines

changes in community support; USAREUR vs. last assignment. The final section

provides some basic "bottom line" information on quality of life, the family

members' reported satisfaction with key aspects of Army family life in USAREJR.

Experiences Relative to Expectations About USAREUR

As shown in Table 17, relatively few individuals report finding life in

USAREUR to be better than they expected. Rank differences occur only for "The

opportunity to travel in Europe," where about one third of the officer families

report that their experiences exceeded their expectations. Differences between

perceptions of the MMs and wives occur very frequently for the NCO families.

Here, the wives generally report a more positive view, though the quality of

life expectations for both NCO service members and spouses are seldom exceeded.

Table 17

Family Life Experiences in USAREUR That Were Better Than Expected

Percentage reporting better -Enlisted NCO Officer

Athan expected: MM SP MM SP MM SP

Quality housing for the family 19 28' 14 * 18' 19 21

Quality school for the kids 11 10 17 * 12 20 *13

Time for family togetherness 7 7 6 * 9 12' 14

A job I really liked 8' 9' 14' * 19 22' 22

*Increases chances of advancement and

promotion for the military member 8 9 12 13 10 9

Chance to travel in Europe 14 16 17 *21 28' 37'

Chance for family to enjoy and

appreciate living in a foreign

country 15 12 13 11 14 16

Financial security and stability 13 20 15 *20 18 24

*=Significant difference between MM and SP responses within the same rank

group.

=Significant difference of MM or SP responses from MM or SP responses in the

other rank groups.

=Significant difference of MM or SP responses from only the rank group similarly designated by "

32

.4 d
From Table 18 it can be seen that most family life experience iten responses fall into the "Worse than expected" response category. For seven of

the nine questions clear rank differences occur. For each of these items, as

rank decreases the number reporting that their experiences were worse than expected increases. This is generally true for both the MM and SP, with some

exceptions. About two thirds of the enlisted families report being particularly disappointed in terms of time for family togetherness, a job I really

liked, and increased chances of advancement and promotion for the MM. where

family differences occur within ranks, the disappointment is greater for the

MM. The most revealing finding in this set of data is the great extent to

which expectations were not met for the enlisted personnel, and to a lesser

extent for the NCOs.

Table 18

Family Life Experiences in USAREUR That Were Worse Than Expected

Percentage reporting worse Enlisted NCO officer

than expected: MM SP MM SP MM SP

Quality housing for the family 32 27 32 28 25 26

VQuality school for the kids 24 27 22 24 19 22

Time for family togetherness 731 * 61' 55' * 46' 33' 29'

A job I really liked 60' * 50' 46' * 33 29' 27

Increased chances of advancement and

promotion for the military member 60' 57' 31' 30' 10' 13'

Chance to travel in Europe 44' 441 331 * 25 17' 19

Chance for family to enjoy and

appreciate living in a foreign

country 471 * 37' 331 *26' 14' 10'

Quality medical/dental service

for family 39 43' 37' 33' 23' 22'

Financial security and stability 30 24' 24 *17' 3' 3'

01 = Significant difference between MM and SP responses within the same rank

group.

=Significant difference of MM or SP responses from MM or SP responses in the

other rank groups.

=Significant difference of MM or SP responses from only the rank group similarly designated by "

33

V.S
Findings. Only about 10% to 20% of Army families surveyed found aspects

of life in USAREUR to be better than they expected it to be. Here, officer

families differed from the others in that their travel opportunities in Europe

exceeded their expectations more often.

For most Army families in LSAREUR, their experiences proved to be worse

* than expected. As rank decreases, this number increases. Where family differences occur, disappointment is greater for the MM. The greatest disappointments

cited concerned time for family togetherness and job satisfaction.

Community Life in USAREUR Relative to Previous Assignment

The survey respondents were asked, "Compared to life in your last assignment before coming to Europe, how is life now in USAREUR?" with regard to 27

aspects of Army community life. Only the responses for individuals who reported "Much better than" and "Much worse than" are presented in Tables 19 and

20, i.e., those aspects of community life in USAREUR that appear to be an advantage and those that are problems, respectively. The data in Table 21 combine the "Just as good as" and "Much better than" responses into a basic quality of life measure and essentially indicate how many of the Army families are

satisfied with the separate aspects of USAREUR community life.

The information in Table 19 is presented to indicate what aspects of community life are considered to be an advantage ("Much better than" previous assignment) and how many of the families feel this way. Generally, fewer than

20% of those surveyed report that any of the areas covered represent an advantage to life in USAREUR. An exception to this is that amount of crime in the

community or safety from crime is seen as better by many respondents-to be an

advantage to life in USAREUR. Results indicate that officer families are more

optimistic than others with respect to "Being able to travel" (74%) and "Eating

out with the family and friends" (45%). About 30% of the officer families also

report that cost of living in USAREUR is "Much better than" in their last assignment. Beyond these, few rank differences are found, with the exceptions

that significantly more enlisted spouses indicate that they are pleased about

their housing, neighborhood, and the quality of the children's education.

In contrast, the data from Table 20 reveal the disadvantages to life in

USAREUR. A higher percentage of the respondents report that the community

life they experience in USAREUR is "Much worse than" it was in the last assignment, across almost all the community life items considered. The exceptions

here are that opportunity for travel, amount of crime, and quality of marital

relationship are not viewed as USAREUR-related problems. Where significant

rank differences occur, the dissatisfaction is greater as rank decreases. The

only exception is in the area of housing, where dissatisfaction increases significantly for spouses of higher ranking military members. Differences between

family members occur primarily for NCO families, with the spouses expressing

less dissatisfaction than the military member.

Time available to spend with children is a key concern, and it should be

noted that in some areas high school students must live in dormitories in a

distant city during the week and are bused "home" on weekends. The majority

of respondents also indicate that the fear of family members being caught in a

war is much worse in USAREUR. About half of the enlisted and officer family

34
Table 19

Community Life Experiences in USAREUR Rated Much Better Than the

Previous Assignment

Percentage indicating Enlisted NCO Officer

better than: MM SP MM SP MM SP

Your present housing 25"1 33' 16' 16 19 13

*Your present neighborhood 21 24' 14 12 15 13

Cost of living 14 19 15 17 29' 27'

Being able to travel and see new

*places 34 30 35 37 74' 74'

Opportunity to eat out with the

*family and friends 19 13 15 18 44' 45'

Children's happiness 11 10 8 10 9 6

Spouse's happiness 14 23 15 15 15 14

Amount of time parents have with

their children 6 9 6 10 9 9

Chances for spouse to find a job 10' 16 20 19 18 21

Quality of children's education 18 25' 14 12 8 7

Quality and number of friendships 12 14 9 91 9 17

Fear that family members will be

caught in war 11 2 13 * 6 11 4

Number of financial problems 17 24 24 * 30 21 29

Amount of crime 41 50 34 38' 42 49

Quality of marital relationship 26 31 22 21 14' 20

*=Significant difference between MM and SP responses within the same rank

group.

=Significant difference of MM or SP responses from MM or SP responses in the

other rank groups.

=Significant difference of MM or SP responses from only the rank group similarly designated by "

35
Table 20

Community Life Experiences in USAREUR Rated Much Worse Than the

Previous Assignment

Percentage indicating much Enlisted NCO Officer

worse than: MM SP MM SP MM SP

Family

Your present housing 35' 28' 47 * 39' 55 53'

Your present neighborhood 28 27 37 34 34 30

Cost of living 36 34 36 * 29 17' * 8'

Being able to travel and see new

places 31 29' 24 * 19' 9' * 2'

Opportunity to eat out with the

family and friends 31 35' 26 26' 9' 8'

Children's happiness 26 24 28 28 20 19

Spouse's happiness 45 41 38 35 26' 19'

Amount of time parents have with

their children 53 46 54 * 41 39' 32

Chances for spouse to find a job 52 56' 39' 37 50 39

Quality of children's education 30 34 26 * 32 31 36

Quality and number of friendships 30 38 29 30 19 1 2'

Fear that family members will be

caught in war 62 * 73' 51' 57 62 53

Number of financial problems 29 * 22 26 * 17 9' 6'

Amount of crime 11 11 17 * 12 10 * 5

Quality of marital relationship 19 21' 16 14' 8' 6'

• = Significant difference between MM and SP responses within the same rank

group.

= Significant difference of MM or SP responses from MM or SP responses in the

other rank groups.

= Significant difference of MM or SP responses from only the rank group similarly designated by ".

36
members feel that job opportunities f or wives are much worse in USAREUR, with

enlisted family wives seeing this lack of job opportunity as being more of a

problem than do the other wives. Less than one third of the families see cost

of living and financial problems as being much worse in USAREUR. In general,

only about 10% respond that crime is much worse in USAREUR.

Having identified what is much better and what is much worse about com-

* munity life in USAREUR, a measure of the general quality of life that currently

exists was derived. The figures in Table 21 represent the opinion that life in

USAREUR is just as good as, or better than in the previous assignment. This is

a basic quality of life indicator showing the percentage of the survey sample

that is basically satisfied with each aspect of community life. When this general quality of life is considered, a somewhat different picture emerges. The

pattern of the data in Table 21 indicates that with some exceptions the majority of military families report quality of community life to be just as good as

or better than their previous assignment. To highlight the findings, quality

of marital relationships, number of friendships, children's education and happiness are all reported to be just as good or better in USAREUR than in the

previous assignment by the v7ast majority. Similarly, opportunity to travel and

eat out in USAREUR are rated highly by 60% or more of the families. When rank

differences occur, attitudes are generally more positive for the officer families. A greater percentage of the enlisted military members are pleased with

their USAREUR housing, while the officer's spouse is the least pleased compared

* to other wives. Significant rank differences also occur in the military member's perception of his spouse's happiness, as positive perceptions again increase with rank. Opinion differences between family members occur most often

for the NCO families, where the perceptions of the wives are generally more

positive, except for their greater fear of family members being caught in war,

and lower opinion of children's education. Both the enlisted and NCd military -; * members are much less satisfied than their spouses about the amount of time

they have to spend with their children.

Findings. Considering advantages to life in USAREJR, fewer than 20% of

those surveyed report that a particular aspect of USAREUR community life is

"much better" than it was in the previous assignment, i.e., an advantage.

Three community life areas in particular are seen as being "much worse" 4..* in USAREUR by about half of all respondents (with some rank differences): the

amount of time parents have with children, chances for the wife to find a job,

and fear that family members will be caught in a war.

With regard to general satisfaction, the majority of families surveyed

indicate that the quality of community life in USAREUR is "equal to or better

than" their previous assignment, i.e., they are basically satisfied. Where

rank differences occur, attitudes are generally more positive for the officer

families.

Community Support Services in USAREUR Relative to Those

of Previous Assignment

A very basic question in assessing quality ot life in USAREUR is to consider how community support, both physical facilities (like the PX) and support

services (such as Army Community Services programs (ACS) in USAREUR, compares

37
Table 21

Quality of Community Life in USAREUR Compared to Previous Assignment

Percentage indicating USAREUR just Enlisted NCO Officer

as good as/much better than CONUS: MM SP MM SP MM SP

Your present housing 58' 65 48 * 55 40 43'

Your present neighborhood 57 63 54 * 60 63 65

Cost of living 35 * 47 40 * 52 67' 76'

Being able to travel and see new

places 60" 65" 70" 75" 89" * 97"

Opportunity to eat out with the

family and friends 60 59 67 67 89' 91'

Children's happiness 64 71 68 69" 77 82"

Spouse's happiness 46" 53 57" 59 74" 791

Amount of time parents have with

their children 26 * 43 38 * 51 48' 54

Chances for spouse to find a job 34' 31' 47 48 -44 50

Quality of children's education 60 64 69 * 62 63 60

Quality and number of friendships 60 58 65 63 79' 85

Fear that family members will be

caught in a war 25 * 12' 38' * 25 24 32

Number of financial problems 46 * 59 53 * 61 75' 77'

Amount of crime 60 70 57 59' 64 * 75

Quality of marital relationship 76 80 80 80 88' * 93'

* = Significant difference between MM and SP responses within the same rank

group.

% .=Significant difference of MM or SP resppnses from MM or SP responses in the

other rank groups.

Significant difference of MM or SP responses from only the rank group similarly designated by ",

38

•~ %0
to that offered in the previous assignment, typically CONUS. The basic question is again "Compared to life in your last assignment before coming to Europe,

how is life now in USAREUR?" The responses for individuals who reported "Much

better than" and "Much worse than" are presented in Tables 22 and 23, i.e.,

those aspects of community support in USAREUR that represent an improvement or

a reduction in support, respectively. The figures in Table 24 represent the

opinion that the community support available in USAREEJR is just as good as or

better than in the previous assignment.

Table 22

Community Support Services Rated Much Better Than the Previous Assignment

Percentage indicating much better Enlisted NCO Officer

than: MM SP MM SP MM SP

Community

PX 9 4 10 9 11 15'

Commissary 8 8 9 9 10 11

Medical/dental services 11 *15 12 *16 13 18

Quality of Army Community

Services program 13 12 11" 11 -1' 16

Quality of recreation programs

*.. (theaters, gyms, crafts, etc.) 7 7 7 6 13' 12

Youth activities 7 13 10 11 12 * 23'

Use of NCO/Officers' Clubs 7 9 11 13 16 13

Quality of chaplain program 22 13 14 * 8 18 * 1

Quality of church/synagogue

services and activities 14 13 7 6 13 7

Child care services 9 15 5 7' 8 17

*=Significant difference between MM and SP responses within the same rank

group.

=Significant difference of MM or SP responses from MM or SP responses in the

other rank groups.

=Significant difference of MM or SP responses from only the rank qroup similarly designated by "

39
Table 23

Community Support Services Rated Much Worse Than the Previous Assignment

Percentage indicating much worse -Enlisted NCO Officer

than: MM SP M.M SP MM SP

Community

PX 68 66 61 60 49' 39'

Commissary 61 64 60 58 49 42'

Medical/dental service 40 43 41 37 26' 27'

Quality of Army Community

Service program 30 28 23 21 9' g

Quality of recreation programs

(theaters, gyms, crafts, etc.) 52 51" 52 * 42 45 36"

Youth activities 32 29 33 33 39 37

Use of NCO/Officers' Clubs 42"9 39 36 * 28 28" 34

Quality of chaplain program 14 16 11 12 13 22

Quality of churches/synagogues

services and activities 18 27 17 19 19 21

Child care services 50 50 47 *33 44 33

*=Significant difference between MM and SP responses within the same rank

group.

Significant difference of MM or SP responses from MM or SP responses in the

other rank groups.

* " =Significant difference of MM or SP responses from only the rank group similarly designated by "

40

N' V,~W~V' r....r... -
Table 24

Quality of Community Support in USAREUR Compared to the Previous Assignment

Percentage indicating just as good Enlisted NCO Officer

as/much better than CONUS: MM SP MM SP MM SP

USRURSppr

PX 27 30 32 35 44' 54'

Commissary 28 31 34 37 42 51'

Medical/dental services 40 49 50 54 64' 67'

Quality of Army Community

Services program 59 68 63 67 811 89'

Quality of recreation programs

(theaters, gyms, crafts, etc.) 38 45 39 *50 53 60

*..Youth activities program 55 60 58 57 55 63

Use of NCO/Officers' Clubs 36' *52 50 60 58 50

Quality of chaplain program 76 75 79 77 81 74

Quality of church/synagogue

services and activities 70 69 75 73 79 74

Child care services 41 41 38 44 38 *55

*=Significant difference between MM and SP responses within the same rank

group.

=Significant difference of MM or SP responses from MM or SP responses in the

other rank groups.

As can be seen in Table 22, relatively few individuals consider community

support services to be "Much better than" in the previous assignment. Any percentage, however low, can be considered a bonus though since the services are

being provided overseas. The percentage of families indicating that community

support is "Much worse" than before is quite high. Table 23 shows that where

rank differences occur, the reduced support problem is significantly greater

for the enlisted families. It should be kept in mind that the enlisted and

NCO families are typically located in the more rural areas. The smaller military communities in these areas do not have the same resources as the larger

military communities, where a larger percentage of higher ranking military

personnel are located.

41

% %% V
Response cifterences between rank groups were not found for the community

support issues. This is consistent with previous Army Family Survey work

(Ozkaptan, Sanders, & Holz, in press) which found that an equal percentage of

families in each rank group holds a negative attitude about being in USAREUR

that is pervasive across many issues on the receptiveness of Army families in

USAREUR to incentives for extension.

When the responses of "Just as good" or "Much better than" are combined

into a general satisfaction indicator, some community support services fare

quite well, as can be seen in Table 24. Most families indicate satisfaction

with the quality of chaplain programs and services, and Army Community Services

programs. Problem areas identified are the PX, commissaries, and child care

services. Once again dissatisfaction in these areas increases as rank decreases.

Findings. Relatively few individuals consider community support services

to be much better than in their previous assignment. En contrast, many fami-

' lies indicate that community support services are much worse. This reduced

support problem is significantly worse for the enlisted families.

When responses of "Just as good" and "Much better than" are combined as a

general indicator of satisfaction, the chaplain programs and Army Community

Services fare quite well. The PX, commissaries, and child care services appear to be problem areas.

Satisfaction

A "bottom line" on quality of life in USAREUR is provided by global measures of satisfaction presented in Table 25. Satisfaction with family life,

Army life, and housing generally reflects the overall trends reported for expectations about USAREUR, and perceived changes in community life and community support. Most Army families report that they are satisfied with their

family life in USAREUR. As rank increases, significantly more military members report being satisfied with their family life, with twice as many officers expressing this opinion than enlisted members. Significantly more of the

officers' wives group also report being satisfied with family life than do

wives of enlisted personnel and NCOs. More of these enlisted and NCO wives in

turn report being satisfied with family life than do the enlisted and NCO service members.

Considering satisfaction with Army life, significant rank differences

occur for both the military members and wives. Only about 30% of the enlisted

family members report being satisfied with Army life in USAREUR, while about

42% of the NCO families and 73% of the officer families report satisfaction.

The relatively low job satisfaction of the enlisted and NCOs may generalize to

other attitudes regarding USAREUR.

M~ost family members report that they are satisfied with their USAREUR

housing. Rank differences do not occur, and only the NCO wives and soldiers

groups differ, with more reporting satisfaction with housing. It should be

noted that significantly more NCO wives report satisfaction across all three

global satisfaction items than do the NCOs.

42
Table 25

Key Elements of Family Satisfaction in USAREUR

Percentage satisfied or very Enlisted NCO Officer

satisfied: MM SP MM SP MM SP

How satisfied are you with each

of the following:

Your family life in USAREUR 42' * 61 55' * 64 82' 79'

Army life (job, mission, rules,

etc.) in USAREUR 31' 35' 42' * 49' 73' 73'

Your housing in USAREUR 58 66 51 * 61 51 59

* = Significant difference between MM and SP responses within the same rank

group.

Significant difference of MM or SP responses from MM or SP responses in the

other rank groups.

It was reported earlier in this section that the officers' wives group

reported significantly more negative attitudes than other wives and soldiers

rank groups when asked to compare USAREUR housing to that of the last assignment. When asked to simply rate their satisfaction with USAREUR housing, however, their responses are more positive and do not differ from the other rank

groups. Perhaps the officers' wives group does experience more of a step-down

in terms of past vs. present housing, but in terms of their present attitude

they seem to accept USAREUR housing limitations just like the enlisted and NCO

wives groups.

Findings. Most Army families report that they are satisfied with their

family life in USAREUR, and this increases significantly as rank increases.

More enlisted and NCO wives say they are satisfied with family life than do

the service members in these rank groups.

more Significant rank differences occur for satisfaction with Army life, as

more than twice as many officer families than enlisted report being satisfied

members.

Most family members report that they are satisfied with their USAREUR

housing.

43
ADAPTATION TO USAREUR

The PCS move and adaptation to USAREUR present the Army family with a

stressful but common part of Army family life. For careerists it will likely

be a recurring event. The mission-essential nature of this activity allows

for the focus on perfecting a PCS and USAREUR adaptation system to recognize

both problems and available supports. A great deal of information was gathered

in the Army Family Survey on adaptation to USAREUR in four key areas. First,

the predeployment experience was considered to determine whether particular

features of "moving-out" constitute a big problem to families. Second, the

family's experiences during the first 3 months following their arrival in

USAREUR were examined to identify where problems might be occurring during the

"moving-in" process. Next, the factors which might serve to compensate families for PCS hardships and thus aid family adjustment in USAREUR were considered, such as the sponsor, past personal experience, and the prospect of travel

in Europe. The fourth area examined families' cultural skills in USAREUR, and

provides a measure of the specialized adaptation or coping resources the families possess.

Predeployment Experiences

Adaptation to USAREUR begins with the PCS-related movement activities in

CONUS. A difficult experience leaving CONUS can create bad felings about

USAREUR even before the Army family arrives. Army family members were asked

whether any of 15 key PCS elements presented problems to the family. Data for

those who indicated that aspects of preparation for the move created a "Big"

or "Very major problem" are reported in Table 26.

Overall, six areas were described as problems by 30% or more of the respondents for a rank group. About one third of all families indicated that

leaving relatives or close friends behind, and packing and shipping goods represented either a big or very major problem. Over 40% of the enlisted personnel and NCOs indicated that having to move their families around in CONUS while

waiting for USAREUR housing presented them with problems. About one third of

the enlisted personnel and NCOs also said that borrowing money to cover travel

had been a big problem, while only 5% of the officers cited this as a problem.

Difficulties selling or renting the family home were reported primarily by the

officers.

For three survey items, significant rank differences occurred only between the officer and NCO rank groups, with the NCOs reporting the most prob- lems and the officers the least problems. The items were "family member had

to give up job," "leave an educational program before completing it," and

"interrupting special educational or medical programs." While these aspects

of the PCS move are problems for a smaller percentage of the respondents,

they are important due to the fact that they are specific to a rank group.

For four items the enlisted and NCO military members reported significantly more problems than the officers. These items were "Having to move family to another home in CONUS while waiting for housing in USAREUR or authorization to travel," "Having to borrow money to cover moving costs," getting

passports and immunizations, and leaving children behind for school. Of these,

multiple moves had the highest percentage of responses for the enlisted and

44
Table 26

Problems with Permanent Change of Station to USAREUR

Percentage reporting "Big problems"

or "Very major problems": Enlisted NCO Officer

Hard to get rid of or relocate a pet because

of restrictions or choose to leave a pet behind 13" 18 260"

Hard to sell or rent out family home 05' 15' 32'

Hard to sell or ship a car 25 29 25

Hard to move family to another home in CONUS

while waiting for housing in USAREUR or

authorization to travel 47 41 27'

Hard to borrow money to cover travel or moving

costs 31 30 05'

Family member had to give up job 25 28"' 17"

Family member had to leave educational program

before completing it 16 23" 11"

Family member had to give up involvement in a

valued activity (e.g., club, sports, etc.) 12 16 13

Had to interrupt medical/dental treatment or

special educational program for a family

member 17 20" 09'

Getting a passport and immunizations 28 21 22'

Getting a port call (location, seat, and time) 24 20 19

Packing and shipping our goods 26 28 33

Leaving relatives behind 44 34 32

Leaving close friends behind 32 27 25

Leaving children behind for school and other

special reasons 15 16 6'

=Significant difference of SP responses from MM responses in the other rank

groups.

=Significant difference of SP responses from only the rank group similarly

designated by '

45

. . . . .
NCOs (47% and 41%, respectively). Of the remaining five items, the problems

were equally shared among the rank groups, including the selling or shipping

Of a car.

The most serious problems over which the Army has some control are the

high percentage of NCOs and enlisted personnel who had to make multiple moves,

the need to borrow money to cover moving costs, and problems getting passports

or immunizations. The financial burdens placed on an Army family during a move

have been recognized in the past. This problem is also compounded by the need

to relocate the family more than once. The reported problems of giving up a

-~ job or an educational or medical program are not readily traceable to Army polN icies, with the exception of giving as much advance notice as possible of a

family's POS to USAREUR.

Findings. About 30% of all families indicated that leaving relatives or

close friends behind, and packing and shipping goods posed a problem.

* Over 40% of the enlisted personnel and NCOs cited having to move families

around in CONUS while waiting for USAREUR housing as a major problem they faced.

About 30% of the enlisted personnel and NCOs also indicated that borrowing

money to cover travel had been a problem associated with the PCS, while only 5%

of the officers indicated that they had this problem.

Experiences upon Arrival in USAREUR

The family's experiences during the first 3 months following arrival in

* USAREUR were examined to identify where problems might be occurring during the

moving-in process. wives were asked how much of a problem each of 12 separate

aspects of moving-in presented to the family. A key notion is that this timeframe constitutes "first impressions" and will strongly influence the attitude

the family takes toward living in USAREUR for the duration of the tour.

A. The data in Table 27 show the percentage of wives indicating that an aspect of the moving-in experience constituted a "big or very major problem" to

the family. wives in each of the three rank groups provided significantly different responses for 3 of the 12 adaptation items. Enlisted wives reported

the most problems, with over 40% indicating that getting permanent housing and

frequent separations due to field duty constituted problems, while one third

reported problems with learning the language and social customs of Germany.

At least part of the reason that NCO wives have less trouble with language and

social customs is the fact that 19% are German by birth.

For six adaptation items the enlisted and NCO wives acted similarly, reporting significantly more problems than the officers' wives. The most noteworthy of these are "more than one move before getting permanent assignment,"

"having to buy new household goods," and "npt getting paid on time."

p More NCO wives (about one third) reported that moving costs presented a

problem than did the other rank groups. Overall, about one fourth of all the

wives indicated that delays in arrival of, or damage to, hold baggage or household goods constituted a big or very major problem during the family's first

3 months in USAREUR.

46
Table 27

Problems Experienced Following Arrival in USAREUR

Percentage reporting "Big" or "Very

big" problem: Enlisted NCO Officer

Long delay in arrival of or damage to hold

baggage or household goods 18 21 21

Costs of moving and getting settled were

greater than expected 23 29" 17"

Did not get paid on time 16 14 3'

Couldn't get or had a long delay in getting

a driver's license 16' 7 3

Had difficulty with obtaining auto (picking up

at port, passing inspection, registering, etc.) 11 8 2'

Long delay in getting assigned to or finding

permanent housing 42' 33' 18'

Had to buy new household goods/equipment because

of differences in USAREUR 26 20 12'

Military member had long and/or frequent

*. separations from family due to field duty,

" TDY, etc. 49' 36' 23'

Learning the language and social customs of

Germany or Italy 33' 23' 11'

Learning the telephone and transportation

systems here 24 18 8'

Learning the traffic laws and regulations here 12 14" 5"

More than one move before getting permanent

housing 19 16 6'

' Significant difference of MM responses from SP responses in the other rank

groups.

" Significant difference of MM responses from only the rank group similarly

designated by ".

47

0 %
Findings. The two most frequent problems experienced during the moving-in

process are family separations due to field duty or TDY, etc., and long delays

getting permanent housing. These two areas posed problems for about half of

all the enlisted wives, one third of the NCOs, and one quarter of the officers'

wives.

The third-largest problem area cited by the wives concerned learning the

language and social customs of Germany. A third of the enlisted wives found

this to be a problem, but this decreased significantly as rank increased.

Aids to Adjustment in USAREUR

Many efforts are made to reduce the stressfulness of the PCS move. While

not directly resolving the stressful event, a number of factors can instead

serve to compensate for the problems encountered by mentally preparing the family members, providing social or emotional support, or offering a valued reward

for having gone through the stressful activity. The "helpfulness" of 10 very

different "aids" to adjustment in USAREUR, such as the sponsor, past experience,

and the prospect of travel in Europe, was evaluated in the Army Family Survey.

Specifically, wives were asked "How much did each of the following (10 items)

help you adjust to your arrival in USAREUR?" Table 28 presents the percentages

of wives responding that a particular "aid" was either helpful or very helpful.

Table 28

Aids to Adjustment in USAREUR

Spouse

Percentage reporting helpful or very helpful Enlisted NCO Officer

Preorientation information 42 52 76'

Our sponsor 51 42" 60"

Co-worker and job 47' 60' 85'

Neighbors 66 63 88'

Personal attitude 83 86 93'

Church group 63 52 64

Support of spouse and family 95 92" 99"

Previous experience 68' 84 92

Opportunity to travel 71 77 94'

Opportunity to live in European culture 75 78 90'

= Significant difference of MM or SP responses from MM or SP responses in the

other rank groups.

Significant difference of MM or SP responses from only the rank group similarly designated by ".

48

ir2

'.,,,% " ' % "'" % " "'" """ "" '""'" "
"Support of spouse and family" was cited most frequently, 92% to 99%, by

all rank groups as having been helpful in adjusting to USAREUR. Considering

the reported problems during PCS, family strengths and resiliency are critical

for coping with PCS demands. Any programs that support family bonds contribute

in turn to a family's ability to cope with Army PCS demands. Another important

coping factor included is "personal attitude." Officers' wives more often cite

"personal attitude" as a factor aiding in adjustment to USAREUR than do other

wives, although this perception is generally held across ranks, ranging from

83% to 93% of the wives.

The two factors least often cited as being helpful in adjusting to USAREUR

are "our sponsor," and "preorientation information." Only about 50% of the

wives report that "our sponsor" was helpful, with significantly fewer NCO wives

taking this position. Additional information on sponsor support appears in

the section on Family Problems and Concerns. Similarly, only about half of the

enlisted and NCO wives felt that preorientation information had been helpful.

Significant response differences occur among the three rank groups for

only one question. As rank increases, reported support of "co-workers and job"

increases. For 5 of the 10 questions, a significantly higher number of officers' wives respond that they found the particular factors to be helpful than

did the spouses in the other rank groups. These items are preorientation information, neighbors, personal attitude, and opportunity to travel and live in

a foreign culture. Most wives across all ranks generally view these five factors as being helpful. As would be expected, fewer enlisted wives cite previous experience as having been helpful in their adjustment to USAREUR.

Findings. "Support of spouse and family" was cited most frequently, 92%

to 99%, by all rank groups as having been helpful in adjusting to USAREUR.

With regard to the least helpful "aids," only about half of the wives

cited "our sponsor" or "preorientation information" as being helpful in adjusting to USAREUR.

Cultural Skills Possessed by Family Members in USAREUR

The possession of cultural skills in USAREUR serves as one indication of

the coping resources the family possesses. Both military members and their

wives were asked to report how well they could carry out nine activities, such

as speaking the German language, using public transportation, and shopping on

the local economy, which require particular cultural skills. Specifically,

families were asked "Since coming to USAREUR, to what degree are you now able

to do the following things?" Table 29 presents the percentage of family members responding that they could carry out a particular activity "well" or "very

well."

About 25% of the family members across, all ranks report the ability to

speak the German language well or very well, with the exception of the wives

of the enlisted military members, where only 17% report this ability. With

the exception of language knowledge, the majority of family members indicate

that they can do the activities requiring cultural skills well or very well.

It is interesting to note that 84% to 97% of the respondents indicate that they

do well shopping on the German economy, despite the relatively low percentage

49
reporting their ability to speak German well. Apparently the English-language

skills of Germans are helping to bridge this gap to some degree. Despite the

language barrier the families report that they are getting out and about.

Table 29

9%. Cultural Skills Possessed by Family Members in USAREUR

Percentage reporting Enlisted NCOs Officer

well or use well: MM SP MM SP MM SP

Speak the German language 24 1 7' 28 27 26 26

Drive a car in USAREUR 76' * 37' 90' * 53' 99' * 89'

Use public transportation in Germany 64' * 50' 72 * 60' 88' * 76'

Use the German telephone system 78 72 83 * 78 89' 87'

Order food from a local restaurant

in Europe 73 * 54' 79 * 63' 93' 89'

Understand German customs and laws 76 * 56' 75 * 65' 86' 85'

Use the German postal system 51' * 41' 64' * 51' 83' 84'

Use the train system in Europe 63' * 35' 72' * 47' 86' * 68'

Shop on the economy 88 84 87 85 95' 97'

Significant difference between MM and SP responses within the same rank

group.

= Significant difference of MM or SP responses from MM or SP responses in the

other rank groups.

= Significant difference of MM or SP responses from only the rank group similarly designated by ".

For four of the nine skills significant rank group differences occur among

military members, and also among their wives, where skills increase with rank.

The particular skills involve using public transportation, the train system,

and the postal system, and driving a car. The latter skill is naturally associated with the availability of financial resources to own and use a car. The

othe-r skill differences may also be tied to the reduced availability of these

services in the more rural areas of the country, where the majority of enlisted

and NCO families are located.

50

9VJ
Response differences occurred between wives' rank groups for the two items

"Understanding German customs and laws" and "Ordering food in local restaurants."

These differences may again be related to rank group differences in financial

resources and access to transportation, which could limit lower ranking families' contact with the local German community. Rank-related demographic characteristics such as education and USAREUR experience would also be logical contributing factors.

Findings. About 25% of all the family members report the ability to speak

the Ge;rman language well or very well. The one exception to this is that significantly fewer enlisted wives (17%) report this ability.

With the exception of language knowledge, the majority of all family members indicate that they can do the activities requiring cultural skills either

well or very well.

FAMILY PROBLEMS AND CONCERNS

It has been argued by Gonzales (1970) that "The military family is influenced by a host of acute and chronic stresses related to, if not unique to,

life in the military," and that "No other large group is exposed so uniformly

to the pressures of father absence and geographical mobility" (in McCubbin &

Patterson, 1983). Problems of families in USAREUR occur for many reasons.

Some are caused by aspects of the Army mission, some can be linked to life in

the USAREUR community, and others will be a function of family life. The

* present section will identify some problems and concerns associated with Army

family life in USAREUR, specifically addressing Army-related problems, familycentered problems, and concerns influencing plans for tour extension and spon-

* sor support.

Army Mission-Related Family Problems

Family problems occur for many reasons. Some are caused by aspects of

life in the Army, some by being in USAREUR, and others are a function of family

lifestyles and degree of harmony. Army-related problems are shown in Table 30.

Of note is the high percentage of enlisted and NCO family member agreement to

the statements that family and work schedules are always up in the air due to

frequent TDYs, long hours, etc., and "Our family is unsure when the military

member will be home or gone." Overall, about two thirds of these enlisted and

NCO family members also report that Army life makes planning for family members' education and work almost impossible, and that they cannot plan in advance for military assignments. Once again, officer families report the fewest

problems in this regard. Where significant differences occur between service

member and spouse groups, it is the spouse group that takes the more positive

view. Officer spouses, however, feel more negatively than do the officers

about being able to plan for future assignm~ents.

Findings. Enlisted and NCO fanily members feel that Army life makes planning for family members' education and work almost impossible.

The enlisted and NCO spouses have a more positive view than the service

* member about Army problems.

51
Table 30

Army Mission-Related Family Problems

Percentage agreeing with the Enlisted NCOs Officer

following statements: MM SP KM SP MM SP

Army life makes planning for

family members' education and

work almost impossible. 71 *61 68 * 61 44' 52

Our family can pretty well plan

in advance for military assignments in the Army. 31 35 30 * 39 51' * 37

Our work and family schedules

are always up in the air because

of frequent TDYs, long work

hours, etc. 81 791 78 * 71' 57' 60'

Our family is unsure when our

active duty member will be home

or gone. 78 79 70 73 48' 53'

*=Significant difference between KM and SP responses within the same rank

group.

-Significant difference of MM or SP responses from MM or SP responses in the

other rank groups.

-Significant difference of MM or SP responses from only the rank group similarly designated by ".

Personal Problems Experienced by Army Family Members in USAREUR

The Army Family Survey presented a 10-item checklist of possible family

problem events and asked the military member whether any of these problems had

occurred for a family member (Yes/No) during the previous 3 months. The percentage figures in Table 31 represent the "Yes" responses for each item, indicating that the particular problem occurred at least once for any one of the

family members over the past 3 months. The data are thus limited in that they

cannot convey an indication of the actual frequency of the problem event within

a family and of how many members were affected.

The four problem areas for which the rank group responses do not differ

significantly involve visiting the hospital as an outpatient, being admitted

to a hospital for treatment, having a minor personal injury, and having trouble

with the police. Over three fourths of all those surveyed indicated that some

member of their family had been hospitalized as an outpatient. About 15% to

20% of the military members also indicated that a family member had been

52
admitted to the hospital for treatment or had an accident not requiring medical

treatment. It is difficult to interpret the large outpatient trend as this behavior could involve instances as minor as getting aspirin. Similarly, the 15%

to 20% treatment and minor accident rate for a family over a 3-month period is

not obviously high or low by itself.

Table 31

Personal Problems Experienced by Army Family Members in USAREUR

Percentage saying "Yes" during Military member

past 3 months: Enlisted NCO Officer

Visited a dispensary/hospital as an

outpatient for an illness 72 70 78

Been admitted to the hospital for treatment 22 15 14

Had an accident involving a personal injury

that did NOT require medical treatment 17 17 21

* . Sought professional help (chaplain, counselor,

etc.) for a marital or family problem 12" 8 50"

Taken any steps for a marital separation or

divorce 3 5,P if.

Had difficulty paying bills 34 27 8"

* Had a problem with anger and physically

abused another 13" 9 4"

-~ Had a problem with overuse of alcohol or use

of drugs 161 10, 31

Considered or attempted suicide 3 5"1 i's

Been in trouble with the German, Italian, or

military police 3 2 1

V =Significant difference between MM and SP responses within the same rank

group.

=Significant difference of MM or SP responses from KM or SP responses in the

other rank groups.

=Significant difference of MM or SP responses from only the rank group similarly designated by "

53
The reports of problems encountered by Army families do differ significantly as a function of family rank group for 6 of the 10 problem events examined. For four of the six areas, reports of problems decrease as rank increases. About 30% of the enlisted personnel and NCOs say that they have had

-* difficulty paying bills in the last 3 months--significantly more than for the

officer group. Each rank group differs significantly in the use of drugs/al-

-. cohol in the previous 3 months. Enlisted and officer military members differ

in terms of reported anger/physical abuse problems and seeking help for marital

or family problems, with about 13% of the enlisted personnel and 4% of the officers indicating these problems. Less than 3% of all the military members

report that family members have had trouble with the police during the previous

3 months.

NCOs and officers differ significantly with regard to suicidal thoughts

or behavior, and the initiation of marital separation or divorce. However,

only 5% of the NCOs and 1% of the officers report these problems. Earlier in

Table 20 it was reported that the fear that "family members will be caught in

a war" is much worse in USAREUR. This fear is not offset by any great confidence in the "Noncombatant Evacuation Operations" (NEO) program. As can be

seen in Table 32, fewer than half of the families feel NEO will protect them.

It should be noted that faith in NEO decreases as rank increases. Significant

rank differences occur for the alternate response of "no" or "never heard of

NEO," with 10% of the enlisted families giving the latter response.

Table 32

Family Members' Faith in Noncombatant Evacuation Operations (NEO)

Do you think NEO will protect Enlisted NCO Officer

you and your family? MM SP MM SP MM SP

Yes 49 50 38 * 46 37 38

No 39' * 23' 59 * 396 63 546

Never heard of NEO 10' 12' 2 * 5 0 1

• = Significant difference between MM and SP responses within the same rank

group.

= Significant difference of MM or SP responses from MM or SP responses in the

other rank groups.

Significant difference of MM or SP responses from only the rank group similarly designated by

Findings. Over three fourths of all those surveyed indicated that there

had been family member outpatient treatment within the prior 3 months.

For four of the six areas where rank groups differ, reports of problems

decrease as rank increases. In particular, about 30% of the enlisted personnel

54

gz
I ii

4.

v. and NCOs indicate difficulties paying bills, a rate significantly higher than

Nthat for the officer group.

Fewer than half of the Army families surveyed feel that NEO will protect

them. Unlike most problem areas, faith in NEO decreases as rank increases.

Problems Influencing Plans for Extension

A bottom line measure of adjustment to Army life in USAREUR is the question of whether the family would choose to remain in USAREUR voluntarily. Data

from two survey items were combined in Table 3 yielding an answer to the basic

question for the military member, "Would you extend on your present tour if you

had the chance?" Similarly, wives "€ere asked if the family would be supportive/

encourage the military member to extend his present USAREUR tour.

Table 33

Problems Influencing Plans for Tour Extension

Enlisted NCO Officer

MM SP MM SP MM SP

Would you extend on your present

tour if you had the chance?

Yes 10' * 28' 18' * 40 34' * 47

Maybe, but only for an incentive 59' * 25 47' * 24 36' * 21

No, not even for an incentive 25 28 32 * 25 29 26

What one thing would stop you from

extending?

Family reasons 24 25 27 31 54' 48'

Job reasons 41 * 11 39 * 14 31 * 10

Cost of living here 7 10 6 * 9 1' 3'

Don't like Europe 5 8 7" 5 2" 1'

Personal reasons 7 * 22 12 * 23 10 * 24

"Nothing--I'm getting out" 10' 8 4 * 6 2 5

• = Significant difference between MM and SP responses within the same rank

group.

= Significant difference of MM or SP responses from MM or SP responses in the

other rank groups.

= Significant difference of MM or SP responses from only the rank group similarly designated by ".

p . ) 55

-l 4. r I f It
When the results of each rank group are combined, 20% of the military

mnember respondents report "yes" (I would extend), while 30% say "no." The remaining 50% indicate "maybe," but only for an incentive. The number of military members responding "yes" (I would extend) increases as rank increases.

Conversely, more military members report "maybe" as rank decreases. Approximately an equal percentage of each rank group indicates that they would not

extend their present tours even for an incentive. It is interesting to note

that for each rank group wives indicate that they would be very willing to

support or encourage the husbands' decision to extend the tour in USAREUR.

Several factors influencing extension decisions are also presented in

Table 33. A significantly higher percentage of officer families report "family reasons" as being one thing that would stop them from extending their

tours, while more enlisted and NCO families report "job reasons" as the critical factor.

Findings. About 20% of the military members respond "yes" (I would extend if given the chance), while 30% say "no" (I would not extend even for an

incentive). The number saying "yes"* increases with rank, while the number

saying "no" is essentially'equal across ranks. For each rank group, the wives

indicate that they would be very willing to support the husband's decision to

extend.

Officer families more often report "family reasons" as being one thing

that would stop them from extending, while enlisted and NCO families more

often cite "job reasons" as the critical factor.

Sponsor Support

Approximately 80% of all the married accompanied families surveyed were

"command sponsored" and were thus eligible for housing support and other benefits in USAREUR. Table 34 shows, however, that only about one third of all

those coming to USAREUR "command sponsored" actually had a sponsor assigned

-' to them, or one who helped them during the PCS process.

Table 34

Command-Sponsored Families with a Sponsor Assigned by Rank

Command sponsored

Enlisted 55% (110 people)

*NCO 88% (522 people)

Officer 97% (147 people)

Percentage of command-sponsored families having a sponsor who was "assigned

* or helped"

Enlisted 17% (19 people)

NCO 40% (211 people)

Officer 89% (131 people)

56
Military members were asked to indicate (yes/no) whether their sponsor

took any of eight specific actions to support their family in the PCS move.

Due to the small number of enlisted families who actually had a sponsor assigned (n = 19), response difference testing across all rank groups for the

eight survey items was not carried out in Table 35. However, statistically

significant differences were identified between the NCO and officer responses.

Across seven of the eight types of support, significantly more officers than

NCOs report that they had the help of a sponsor. The simple exception to the

trend is that most soldiers in each rank group report that their sponsor sent

information about the assignment in USAREUR.

Table 35

The Nature and Extent of Sponsor Support

Activities provided for the command-sponsored service members who

reported having a sponsor who was "assigned or helped"

Enlisted (19) NCO (211) Officer (131)

Sponsor wrote/called ahead of time 58% 63%" 85%"

Sponsor offered to help service

member find quarters 37% 16%" 44%"

Sponsor sent information about

assignment/USAREUR 79% 64% 75%

Sponsor met service member upon

arrival 37% 43%" 76%"

Sponsor arranged for temporary

quarters 16% 26%" 61%"

Sponsor showed service member

around 37% 43%" 69%"

Sponsor gave helpful, practical

information 37% 39%" 67%"

Sponsor helped in settling into

quarters 26% 15%" 27%"

-" = Significant difference of MM responses from only the rank group similarly

designated by ".

The most commonly reported forms of support are "Sponsor wrote/called

ahead of time," and "Sponsor sent information about the assignment to USAREUR,"

and were reported by more than half of the NCOs and officers. The two least

frequently reported sponsorship activities are probably very important elements

57

/ C1
of support: (1) sponsor offered to help find quarters, and (2) sponsor helped

in settling into quarters.

Findings. While approximately 80% of the families in the sample are "command sponsored," only about one third of these report actually having had a

sponsor assigned or one who helped.

Only 17% of the enlisted personnel who were command sponsored had a sponsor, while 40% of the NCOs and 89% of the officers had a sponsor assigned.

Significantly more officers report receiving support from their sponsor

on almost all dimensions.

CONCLUSIONS

The above information on families has important implications for the Army.

Its success in this area supports reenlistments and reinforces the value of the

new initiative with respect to family support. In effect, and for whatever

reason, families on balance seem to prosper in the Army. This may account for

their high commitment to the Army and their feeling that an Army career can be

good for the family, as well as their willingness to forbear the specific problems that are reported. Their reported commitment to the Army, however, may be

a function of the degree to which the family unit is sustained. Hence, the Army

supports its own best interests when it supports the Army family.

58
APPENDIX A

METHOD, SAMPLING PLAN, AND SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS

Method

The survey instrument was a collaborative effort between personnel from

the University of Minnesota and the ARI USAREUR Field Unit. It contains specific scales prepared by the University of Minnesota, and questions added by

Field Unit members. Approximately 400 questions were asked. In the compilation of data, the scale and the other categories of questions that were asked

have been sorted into categories reflective of the White Paper and other

USAREUR-specific issues.

The responses of the MM and SP are presented together where the same question was asked of each. However, only averages of each group are compared to

one another. The responses of paired family members are not analyzed per se.

In some cases questions were asked of only one or the other family member. The

data are also organized relative to the enlisted, NCO, and officer groups. As

can be seen by the following tables, the data are highlighted when significant

response differences occur between the MMs of each rank group or the SPs of each

rank group. The data are also highlighted when significant response differences

occur between the MM and SP in the same rank group. Often the between-rank and

family-member differences within each rank group are more meaningful than the

absolute level of the responses themselves. The following interpretation of the

data is based on both of these considerations. Only descriptive data in percentages are presented. Inferential analyses were not conducted on the data of

different response categories.

Sampling Plan

The sampling plan was designed to meet the requirements for surveying

1,000 families in USAREUR within a 3-week period during the month of May 1983.

The sampling approach was predicated on the premise that a representative slice

of USAREUR families (e.g., rank, accompanied, and the number of dependents)

would be related to the type of military unit 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 which 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 were

involved: type of unit and size of military community, recognizing that combat units would typically be found near smaller military communities as well

as rural German areas. In addition, a propprtional stratified sample was desired, where the ratio of combat unit types would be similar to their ratio in

USAREUR and within the representative types of communities in which they would

be located. Expert military judgment was used to select such units. The final

unit/communities that were selected from those that were recommended was determined by the units stating that they would be available in the required timeframe

(month of May 1983). These units and communities are described below.

59
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

* .~,AGerman environment is relatively urban and

industrial.

Unit 4. Combat support and American community is moderate in size;

Combat service support surrounding German environment is urban.

a.Unit 5. Combat service support American community is large; surrounding

German environment is urban.

Unit 6. Combat service support American community is moderate in size;

surrounding German environment is urban.

Unit 7. Combat arms American community is small to moderate in

size; surrounding German environment is

relatively rural.

As can be seen from the above information, 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 groups located in moderate or large military communities and in relatively urban German areas.

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

usual stratified random sampling approach and elected to sample the entire

population of married families in each of the units/communities selected (excluding 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

their 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 36. As can be seen in this

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

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

however, varied for specific groups of items. The above number of usable survey sets represented an 84.4% return rate.

Representativeness of Sample

Based on the SIDPERS data file 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 37. This table compares the number married in each rank category (El-06)

60
Table 36

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 service number and one for the spouse.

85.7% surveys returned from those administered.

84.4% usable surveys from those administered.

61

.s- - , .
Table 37

N

Comparison of the Percentage Married and Accompanied Relative to the Total

Married in Each Rank Category Between the Sample and USAREUR Population

Percentage

Total of total Percentage USAREUR Per- Percentage

USAREUR USAREUR USAREUR sample centage of survey

married married married married of sample

Rank accompanied accompanied force accompanied sample by rank

El 86 0.1 1 0.1

E2 212 0.3 19.88 3 0.3 20.7

E3 1,553 2.5 35 3.5

E4 10,286 16.9 173 17.3

E5 14,944 24.5 230 23.1

E6 12,752 20.9 204 20.4

E7 7,491 12.3 62.4 125 12.5 61.6

E8 2,336 3.8 44 4.4

E9 574 0.9 12 1.2

WI 329 0.5 3 0.3

W2 1,140 1.9 9 0.9

W3 762 1.2 5 0.5

W4 228 0.4 0 --

01 333 0.5 17.1 5 0.5 17.7

02 1,297 2.1 13 1.3

03 3,245 5.3 54 5.4

04 1,878 3.1 45 4.5

05 1,139 1.9 30 3.0

06 458 0.8 11 1.1

61,043* 100% 100% 1,002** 100% 100%

*6.3% of this figure are non-command sponsored.

**1,002 of the total 1,036 returned survey sets provided the rank information

necessary for this analysis.

62
to the total number married of all ranks in terms of percentage for (a) our

sample and (b) the USAREUR population. As can be seen from this 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 Table 37, however, must be qualified as follows:

1. USAREUR married and accompanied population data are not precisely

known, due to a combination of several 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 accompanied 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

nor 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 38. This

table shows the percentage of each rank category in USAREUR that are married

and accompanied, relative to the total number of SMs in that rank category.

Overall, married and accompanied service members represent 27.7% of the service members in USAREUR.1 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

1This number may be underestimated. The USAREUR Personnel Opinion Survey (UPOS)

conducted in December 1983 with 6,600 respondents obtained a figure of 43%.

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

compiled by Family Resources Center, March 1982.

63

-~ -.-. ~ 7... - ~.''j*~ - N
Table 38

Percentage of Each Rank Category in USAREUR in Comparison to the Percentage

of the Married and Accompanied in That Rank Category

Percentage

Total of total Percentage

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

Wl 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.

64
APPENDIX B

REFERENCES

McCubbin, H. I., and Patterson, J. M. (,ie thousand Army families: Strengths,

coping and supports. University of Minnesota, 1983.

Ozkaptan, H., Sanders, W. R., and Holz, R. F. Receptiveness of Army families

in USAREUR to incentives for extension. ARI Research Report 1376,

August 1984.

White Paper, 1983--The Army Family. Chief of Staff, U.S. Army.

Army Family Action Plan. Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, 1984.

,#. .,

65