OPPORTUNITIES OR CHALLENGES?

In this chapter, the committee has not categorized events or features of military families' lives according to whether they are opportunities or challenges, nor does it presume that all challenges are stressors, for these reasons:

• Some experiences could be opportunities, challenges, and stressors—such as job promotion.
• Circumstances may influence how one individual appraises an experience. For example, someone may be eager for a permanent change of station (mandatory moves known as PCS) and to move away from one assignment or town, but then be reluctant to have to move away from another.
• Different individuals have different preferences. For example, some personnel may welcome the opportunity to deploy multiple times, while others may prefer never to deploy.

Nevertheless, some aspects of military life are generally positive, such as opportunities to develop one's skills and to receive steady pay and benefits; others may be generally negative, such as being passed over for promotion; and a few may be potentially catastrophic, such as a service-related permanent disability or the death of a loved one. Figure 4-1 depicts how challenges and opportunities, such as the examples discussed in this chapter, can contribute to or rely upon individual, family, and external resources, such as the ability to cope, social networks, and community organizations. That process can result in positive or negative well-being and readiness outcomes. Managing challenges or opportunities can be an iterative process, one that involves multiple engagements with resources and potentially strengthens or drains resilience factors. These well-being and readiness outcomes can themselves contribute to new challenges or opportunities. This model builds upon a previously proposed Military Family Fitness model (discussed in detail in Bowles et al., 2015), and similarly provides illustrative examples rather than a complete listing in every category.

FIGURE 4-1

The military family well-being and readiness model and illustrative elements. SOURCE: Adapted from in Bowles et al. (2015, Fig. 1).

Military families, particularly those who choose to and are able to remain in the military, can be very adaptable and resilient and can develop healthy coping strategies for the stressors of military life such as moves and deployments (Easterbrooks et al., 2013; Meadows et al., 2016). Military families can develop their own norms and rhythms for the process of managing family separations or moves and for finding out about the right networks, programs, and services available for their particular needs. Children's responses to the opportunities and strains of military family life are likely to depend on parental and family maturity and the individual child's developmental stage, temperament, and social capacity. Based on individual differences within the same family, one child can thrive and another struggle.

The impact of the challenges and opportunities of military life can be shaped by the duration and timing of these events as well. For example, a deployment can be a short mission to transport equipment, supplies, or personnel overseas and back, or it can require service members to live and operate in a combat zone for a year or longer. On the positive side, longer deployments can offer greater opportunities to hone leadership and occupational skills, enhance the ability to compete for promotion or key assignments, and increase service-member income through special pays and tax benefits. However, longer duration deployments can also increase service members' exposure to hazardous environments (e.g., chemical, biological, climatic); present greater risk of war-related injury, death, or exposure to traumatic events; lengthen family separations; and cause service members to miss major milestones such as births and holidays. Individual family members are developing throughout their lives, and the timing of particular events relative to individual development may be consequential.

Early experiences can shape responses to later—sometimes much later—events (Wilmoth and London, 2013). For example, service members' exposure to adverse events such as abuse or violence prior to joining the military can affect their likelihood of later post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or suicide (Carroll et al., 2017). Military service typically begins during the transition to adulthood, with the possibility of enhancing or disrupting the trajectories of individuals' later work and family lives. Service members' military experiences may alter the career trajectories of their spouses or partners (Kleykamp, 2013). An individual could become a military spouse or partner well before their own careers have been established, or long afterward. That timing could result in differing processes for managing the demands of military life, differing levels of resilience resources, and differing types of need for support. Timing is particularly salient in childhood, when development happens so rapidly. For example, children's experiences with relocations may affect later school performance (Lyle, 2006; Moeller et al., 2015). Effects of the content and timing of life experiences can cascade across developmental domains, such that early difficulties at school might lead to later difficulties in relationships with peers (Masten, 2013; Masten and Cicchetti, 2010).

These long-term effects of military experiences may be positive, as the “military-as-turning-point” perspective attests; they may be neutral; or they may be negative, as expressed in the “life-course disruption” perspective (Segal et al., 2015; Wilmoth and London, 2013). The impact of life events and transitions is conditioned by their characteristics, such as how expected, how abrupt, or how traumatic they are (Boss, 2002). In addition, both risks and resilience factors can accumulate to create mutually reinforcing ‘caravans' that move together over time, accelerating positive or negative effects (Layne et al., 2014).

Timing also refers to the historical and social context of military service. MacLean and Elder (2007), for example, documented how the effects of military service varied substantially across conflicts during the 20th century, as societal perceptions of those conflicts shifted. Historical changes in military compensation and educational benefits can also shape both the attractiveness and the consequences of military service. Attitudes of the public toward service members and their families can be powerful influences on the consequences of military service, leading to both positive consequences, such as special efforts to employ veterans, and negative ones, such as society's failure to seek out military and veteran families as assets to their communities (MacLean and Elder, 2007).

THE CONTEXT OF MILITARY FAMILY LIFE: YESTERDAY VERSUS TODAY

The context of military service is dramatically different today from what it was when the all-volunteer force was designed. Today, U.S. forces increasingly serve in diverse missions, including combat, peacekeeping, disaster relief, public health and humanitarian efforts, and homeland security. Many missions, such as those that involve technology or long-term engagement with local populations overseas, require expert knowledge and advanced skills that take years to develop. Today's armed forces prepare for and carry out missions not only in the air, on the land, and on the sea, but through space and cyberspace. Unlike during the Cold War era, today the military is focused not on a single main adversary but on ever-changing threats from state and nonstate actors around the globe. In addition, the National Guard and the Reserves have been called up like never before in our nation's military history (Commission on the National Guard and Reserves, 2008).

As discussed in chapters 2 and 3, today's military personnel and military families are more diverse than ever (DoD, 2017a; Hawkins et al., 2018). The proportions of military personnel who are women, who are dual-military couples, and who are racial and ethnic minorities have all grown. As of 2011, gay, lesbian, and bisexual service members have been allowed to serve openly, and now dependent benefits extend to same-sex spouses. Occupations and units that had been closed to women have gradually opened, and by 2016 the policies that had excluded them from the remaining combat positions were lifted. Also, as discussed in Chapter 3, in 2016, the secretary of defense ended the ban on transgender service (DoD, 2015), which was reversed effective April 2019, with certain exemptions for those diagnosed with gender dysphoria after the ban was lifted (DoD, 2019). There is no ban on transgender military dependents, however, and these dependents have been increasingly seeking gender affirming care through the military health system since it became available in 2016 (Klein et al., 2019; Van Donge et al., 2019).

The number of military dependents continues to outnumber service members by increasingly large margins, and survey data suggest that there are also significant numbers of unmarried partners of personnel in long-term relationships (see Chapter 3) (DoD, 2018). The younger generations have grown up with smartphones, computer tablets, ubiquitous Internet access, GPS-based location and mapping services, online search engines, and the use of social media to create and share content with others (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, Reddit, YouTube). Another important development is that today's military and veteran family populations are more likely than those of past wars to include individuals with physical and mental wounds and challenges, because service members who historically would have died of battlefield wounds, illnesses, or injuries have survived in recent wars due to advances in military medicine, in training, and in aeromedical evacuations.²

Geographic distribution has shifted as well. Today's military families do not necessarily live near other military families or installation-based support services. Instead, they live across communities that are more geographically dispersed, rather than being concentrated in specific neighborhoods, as the active component has shifted from living primarily on military installations to living primarily off-installation (DoD, 2017a). Some families do live in regions with a greater concentration than average of military and veteran families, as noted in Chapter 3. One way in which active component military personnel have become less diverse is that they are increasingly likely to have come from the South and least likely to come from the Northeast (Maley and Hawkins, 2018). Recent analyses find that these regional differences are largely explained by differences in demographic characteristics, such as race, education, and religious adherence (Maley and Hawkins, 2018). Nevertheless, the armed forces still bring together individuals from diverse communities across the United States who work and sometimes live together but who are also immersed in nonmilitary communities.

The structure of DoD's personnel system has important implications for service member and family retention and readiness. To compete with civilian job market opportunities and mitigate the impacts of the demands of military life, particularly post-9/11, support programs for military personnel and their families have grown enormously. However, decades of research continue to show that other one-size-fits-all legacy aspects of the military personnel system, such as the up-or-out policy of promotion, frequent relocation, lack of individual and family control over placements and timing, and the standardization of career pathways, can often negatively impact service members and their families; moreover, they can also increase the military's expenses and limit its ability to develop, assign, and retain the optimal staffing for its needs (Carter et al., 2017; Task Force on Defense Personnel, 2017). Turnover is highest among women (DACOWITS, 2017) and among the junior ranks, where DoD has invested heavily in training and support but has not yet seen the yield of those costs (GAO, 2017).

The widespread access to the internet and the rise of social media and smartphone use can facilitate information sharing, communication with friends and loved ones, self-expression, education, access to services, social networking, mentoring, translation, job and housing searches, and staying in touch with “battle buddies” after moves and deployments. But these digital developments can also be new channels for deception, inappropriate content, misinformation, information overload, abuse and harassment (e.g., cyberbullying, revenge porn, trolling), and distractions from real-world obligations and face-to-face interactions. Additionally, for many members of the American public the news media is the primary or sole source of information about U.S. military members, veterans, and their families, and this in turn can contribute to stereotyping, both positive and negative (Kleykamp and Hipes, 2015; Parrott et al., 2018; Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2013).

The Pew Research Center estimates that U.S. internet use among adults has grown from 52 percent in 2000 to 89 percent in 2018 (Pew Research Center, 2018a). Social media use among adults has grown from 5 percent in 2005 (when Pew first began to collect estimates) to 69 percent in 2018 (Pew Research Center, 2018b). Smartphone ownership among adults rose from 35 percent in 2011 to 77 percent in 2018 (Pew Research Center, 2018c). Usage rates are even higher among younger adults; for example, 94 percent of those ages 18 to 29 had a smartphone in 2018, compared to 73 percent of adults ages 50 to 64 (Pew Research Center, 2018c).

Given these rapid changes over the past decade and a half—in military life, deployments, societal views, family arrangements, and digital access—to the extent possible we have relied in this study on the most recent literature, highlighting where there is still significant work to be done as well as where new developments may call for new strategies or new perspectives on perennial issues. We emphasize that many of the stressors of military life are not inevitable, inherent features, but policies that could be adapted to allow for greater flexibility for the preferences and needs of the diverse individuals and families DoD needs to attract and retain in order to meet the demands of the current and anticipated future national security environment.

TRANSITION INTO THE MILITARY

The military invests significant resources to attract quality recruits and transform them into disciplined and skilled military personnel. Most young Americans do not meet military recruitment standards because of their weight, drug or alcohol abuse, physical or mental health conditions, criminal record, or other such issues. Among youths ages 17 to 24, only about 29 percent (9.6 million) meet all the core eligibility requirements and would be able to enlist without a waiver (JAMRS, 2016, p. 5). Narrowed further to youths who are not enrolled in college and able to score average or better on the Armed Forces Qualification Test, the pool drops to 13 percent of youths (4.4 million) (JAMRS, 2016, p. 5). That figure does not account for individuals' interest in serving in the military or reflect that the military must compete with other organizations with similar employment criteria, such as law enforcement agencies, fire departments, and the Department of Homeland Security.

The estimated cost to recruit, screen, and train each new enlistee is approximately $75,000 (GAO, 2017). Rapid and successful adaptation to military life is key to military family readiness as well as to reducing attrition (failure to complete the first term of service) and increasing the retention of quality personnel beyond the first term of service. First terms of enlistment are typically 4 to 6 years long, but in fiscal year 2011 approximately 27 percent active component enlistees had separated from the military before they had completed 4 years of service, and close to 10 percent of new enlistees had attritted within just 6 months of service (GAO, 2017, p. 12). The recorded indicators of why service members attrite provide little insight, since the leading documented reason was the catch-all “unqualified for active duty, other” (GAO, 2017, p. 14).³

This section considers some of the benefits and challenges that new service members may encounter as they transition into the service and into their first duty stations. Prominent examples from the literature and other sources (e.g., testimonials) discussed here are summarized in Box 4-1. As noted earlier in this chapter, the committee does not sort issues into positive and negative categories, because characterization may depend upon the context and circumstances, the time at which they occur, individuals' own vulnerabilities and interpretations, and other factors. Also, even positive changes can serve as stressors, and both positive and negative experiences can result in individual growth and enhanced resilience. The issues discussed in this section apply to both active and reserve component individuals, and many of them extend throughout the military life course.

BOX 4-1

Examples of Prominent Themes Associated with Transition into and Service in the Military.

For most service members, transitioning from civilian life into military service is typically simultaneous with the transition to adulthood (Kelty et al., 2010). Some military spouses and partners are also experiencing this transition. As discussed in Chapter 3, 40 percent of service members and 19 percent of military spouses are age 25 or younger (DoD, 2017c, pp. 8, 125). Military service often begins with geographic separation from friends and family, as service and occupational entry-level training typically take even members of the National Guard and Reserves away from their hometowns. After initial entry training, reserve component personnel may return to their hometowns and be able to put down roots, but geographic separation from friends and family will be an ongoing feature of military life for many service members.

Especially for those not raised in a military family, entering service can require quite an adjustment to elements of military life. Military jargon, acronyms, organization, culture, and rules and regulations may present a steep learning curve. The loss of a certain degree of privacy—not just of physical space but also potentially loss of privacy of health records if deemed a military necessity—may also require an adjustment.

Military service can also provide a range of intangible benefits. Service members and families alike may greatly enjoy a sense of belonging, a sense of community, camaraderie and esprit de corps. Of course, not everyone who values those qualities feels valued and fully included in their military community. Being ostracized, socially excluded, or otherwise rejected in a tight-knit community can be physically and psychologically painful; DoD policy prohibits such treatment but only when it takes the form of retaliation for reporting crimes (McGraw, 2016; Williams, 2007). In such environments, members may consider the risks of exclusion, ostracization, or other retaliation when reporting misconduct or criminal behavior within the community, or revealing anything that may be stigmatized in that particular community.

New service members may be in a particularly vulnerable position in the organization given their relative unfamiliarity with the rules, regulations, and acceptable norms, and given the power imbalance between them and authority figures who have significant influence over their careers. This may put them at greater risk for abuse, such as sexual harassment or sexual assault (Davis et al., 2017) and hazing rituals (Office of Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity, 2017).

At the same time, it may not be long into a military career before a new service member gains the opportunity to hold a level of responsibility, authority, or power that someone their age and background might rarely experience in a civilian job. For example, recent college graduates (young military officers) can be sent to military operations or battlefields overseas, be held responsible for the lives of their charges, operate multimillion-dollar equipment, control weapons that could cause major loss of life and damage to infrastructure, and be expected to maintain the peace on the ground in an area of heightened tensions.

Related to the hierarchical structure of the organization and the stakes of military missions, the military forbids certain types of relationships. Fraternization refers to Service and DoD policies prohibiting certain relationships that can compromise or appear to compromise the chain of command. Although the term is often used to refer to romantic or sexual relationships, it can also refer to friendships, business partnerships, or other relationships that may indicate a supervisor or commander who is unable to be fair or impartial, who is using rank or position for personal gain or to take advantage of subordinates, or who would not have the ability to exert their authority properly. An example is officers who are too informal with and too often socialize with their subordinates outside of official settings and then find they cannot command effectively in military operations.

Military work can be challenging in both growth-enhancing and negative ways. Less desirable challenges include too-heavy work demands, particularly if they are seemingly relentless, are related to tasks that do not seem essential, or are perceived as being the consequence of poor leadership or organizational management. Examples might include long hours, understaffing, stressful work, or being frequently called away from home for temporary duty (TDY), training, unaccompanied tours, or deployments. As the next chapters will discuss further, traumatic military experiences can include participation in or exposure to combat or its aftermath, being taken a prisoner of war, and being physically or sexually abused, harassed, or assaulted by fellow DoD personnel or contractors.

Military service, awards, and promotions can become a source of pride. On the other end of the spectrum, disciplinary action can be a risk to well-being, and family members may feel the brunt of the consequences economically or by reputation if their service member is confined, docked pay, demoted, required to perform additional duties, denied reenlistment, or discharged.

Officer and enlisted transitions into the military are not equivalent. Officers obtain a college degree prior to obtaining their commission, and thus on average are older and have a higher level of education. Poorer family well-being has been consistently correlated with lower rank (Hawkins et al., 2018, Key Findings, p. ES-8). In addition, there is evidence that enlisted ranks may be at higher risk of developing or reporting post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (Hawkins et al., 2018, p. 31; Lester et al., 2010). Service members in the lower enlisted ranks and their spouses experience more isolation than officers and their families, and officers' children have been reported to use more effective coping skills than those of lower-ranked parents (Hawkins et al., 2018, p. 4; Lucier-Greer et al., 2016). Not surprisingly, military families with lower incomes (such as those with members in the junior enlisted ranks) experience less financial stability and more strain than those with higher incomes. For married or partnered service members, unemployment or underemployment of nonmilitary spouses and disruption of their career progression are often by-products of aspects of the military lifestyle, and these consequences are further affected by a spouse's gender and by the service member's paygrade (Shiffer, et al., 2017).

PAY AND BENEFITS

Service members and their families can benefit from various levels of military pay, health care, housing or housing allowances, education and training (or financial assistance to support it), subsidized child care, and recreational activities, facilities, and discounts. Eligibility can vary by active and reserve component military status, as noted in the examples summarized in Box 4-2). More benefits are available to service members on active duty status, as they are full-time military personnel. Members of the active component and the Reserves always serve under federal control (Title 10), and that is true regardless of whether members of the Reserves are on active duty or reserve status. Members of the National Guard serve under federal control when they are called up for a federal mission, which could include being mobilized for war or providing domestic assistance during national emergencies. When not on Title 10 orders, however, National Guard members work for their states. Responding to natural disasters or accidents as well as homeland security missions could fall under either federal (Title 10) or state (Title 32) control.⁴

BOX 4-2

Examples of Prominent Themes Associated with Military Pays and Benefits.

Because military service offers the promise of financial stability and upward mobility for many families, service members who come from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are over-represented in the forces (Kelty and Segal, 2013) and within the enlisted ranks, although they are by no means the only socioeconomic class of individuals to join the all-volunteer force. Military service offers opportunities for overcoming structural and cumulative disadvantage among those who have been raised in poorer families and communities and received low-quality education, including among racial and ethnic minority groups (Bennett and McDonald, 2013).

Youth from disadvantaged backgrounds often have relatively few options for accessing jobs that provide living wages and skill development or higher education. Thus, military service offers the potential for socioeconomic advancement through competitive wages, educational achievement, including a pathway to college, housing, and health benefits (Bennett and McDonald, 2013, p. 138). In addition, service members have the flexibility to use their service to acquire needed training and skills for later entry into the civilian labor market or may stay in the military through retirement. Military employment opportunities can appeal to the middle class as well, for reasons such as the cost of financing a college education or vocational training, alternative entry-level employment for American youths looking for benefits and on-the-job training, and employment opportunities during economic downturns such as the Great Recession of 2008.

GEOGRAPHIC ASSIGNMENT AND RELOCATION

As shown in the summary in Box 4-3, many of the challenges related to military assignments and relocations are primarily associated with the active component, as reserve component members can typically choose where to live and are not required to keep moving to new locations throughout their military careers.

BOX 4-3

Examples of Prominent Themes Associated with Geographic Assignment and Relocation.

TRAINING, SEA DUTY, AND DEPLOYMENTS

Deployments and sea duty¹² can provide service members with a number of desirable opportunities and benefits, such as

• Employing or developing their skills in real-world settings
• Making a difference in the world
• Developing strong bonds with others
• Earning financial bonuses through special pays and tax advantages, and
• Learning about other parts of the world.

Training and field exercises can also confer some of these advantages and help prepare service members to succeed in military operations.

Personnel tempo, commonly referred to as perstempo, refers to the amount of time individuals serve away from their home duty station, whether for deployments, sea duty, exercises, unit training, or individual training. Although a 2013 DoD policy is supposed to limit the amount of time service members spend away from home, a 2018 GAO assessment found that DoD perstempo data are incomplete and unreliable and that the Services do not have or do not enforce perstempo thresholds (GAO, 2018a). Thus, GAO found, DoD lacks the ability to gauge the amount of stress perstempo rates place on the force and any associated impacts on military readiness (GAO, 2018a).

Much of the literature has focused on the stressors of these family separations, which can have a negative impact on individuals, relationships, and the family as a unit. Examples include service members worrying about their families while geographically separated and trying to manage family problems from afar; relationship problems (e.g., couples growing apart, infidelity, or the end of a relationship); and missing major life events (e.g., births, weddings, funerals, childhood “firsts,” graduations, holidays, and family reunions). Other challenging life events associated with military separations include traumatic experiences, such as combat participation or exposure to dead bodies, violence, atrocities, or abhorrent living conditions (discussed further in subsequent chapters); family members' fear of death, injury, or illness (physical or psychological) of their service member serving in a hostile area; and post-absence readjustment/reintegration between/among family members, including the service member's adjustment to “routine” life upon returning. Family difficulties can be created or exacerbated due to communication challenges, such as connectivity problems, time zones, military-implemented blackouts (e.g., before a secret raid or after major casualties), and even the well-intentioned withholding of information among family members about problems or dangers (Carter and Renshaw, 2016). Box 4-4 provides a brief overview of examples of opportunities and challenges of these types of duties away from personnel's home duty station. As a reminder, these are not sorted into positive and negative categories, as that interpretation can depend on the context and timing, individuals' experiences, and other factors, and some can have both positive and negative aspects.

BOX 4-4

Examples of Prominent Themes Associated with Deployments, Sea Duty, and Training Exercises Away from Home.

NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE SERVICE

Although members of the National Guard and Reserves and their families experience many of the other opportunities and challenges described throughout this chapter, there are certain experiences particular to the reserve component. We consider those experiences here and summarize them in Box 4-5.

BOX 4-5

Examples of Prominent Themes Specific to Members of the National Guard and Reserves.

National Guard and Reserve service can be appealing to some families because of the geographic choice and residential stability affords. Unlike active component personnel, guard and reserve personnel do not face frequent, mandatory geographic relocation, and some move from the active component to the reserve component precisely for this reason. If National Guard members choose to move, they can request an interstate transfer. However, National Guard and Reserve members who do not live near their units are responsible for their own transportation expenses for travel to and from duty. Additionally, those who move may face challenges, in that the unit near their new home may not have a vacancy for their same occupation and pay grade.

There is evidence that for military children, friendships with other military children and participation in military-sponsored activities can be beneficial for their well-being (Bradshaw et al., 2010; Lucier-Greer et al., 2014). Children of members in the reserve component (as well as active component children who live far from military installations) may have few opportunities for face-to-face interactions with others who would have a basic shared understanding of life as a military dependent.

Because the National Guard and Reserves are both part of the “reserve component,” clarifying what aspects of their service differ from service in the active component is critical to having a comprehensive picture of the military. National Guard members usually apply to enlist and work at the unit closest to their home, although they do not necessarily live close to that unit's headquarters or facilities. Recall that they work for their states (under Title 32), unless they are mobilized to work under the federal government (under Title 10), as they would be for an overseas military deployment. Moreover, for the National Guard and Reserves the job requirements, eligibility for programs and services, health care system, and more can vary depending on whether the member's current orders fall under Title 32 or Title 10. Reservists work for the federal government only, but like National Guard members they traditionally train one weekend a month and two weeks in the summer, although they may also be called to full-time active duty service. We are unaware of any tool that would assist National Guard and Reserve families in understanding what they are eligible for at any point based on their service member's current status or upcoming change in status.

Deployment for National Guard and Reserve personnel is typically preceded by mobilization and followed by demobilization, and thus can have deployment cycles that are lengthier than their active component counterparts. When they are mobilized for federal service, they are not necessarily mobilized with their National Guard or Reserve unit as a whole. Individuals may be called up to augment other units that could be located quite far from their homes. Thus, even for those who do live near their own unit, they and their family members may not be near the deploying unit and thus not have easy access to predeployment briefings, activities, or support groups, nor would they already be on the distribution list for unit or spouse network email announcements or newsletters. Similarly, those families may be distant from programs and services designed to aid with post-deployment family reintegration. During demobilization, National Guard and Reserve members usually return to their hometowns and civilian jobs, which may not be close to any fellow unit members or military resources that can assist them with their transition or post-deployment issues.

DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION

As today's military community is more diverse and geographically dispersed than previous generations, the challenge becomes: How does DoD continue to address the diverse needs in the military community and foster a sense of community given ongoing shifts in demographics and the balance of the force?—Third Quadrennial Quality of Life Review (DoD, 2017a, p. 4)

DoD has been implementing institutional policies and practices designed to reduce barriers to service and promote equitable and respectful treatment of all service members (DoD, 2017a, p. 10). According to Lutz (2013), the core training at the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI) aims to achieve total force readiness through a focus on the American identity of service members. This legacy of legal inclusivity has continued into the 21st century with the repeal of the so-called Don't Ask Don't Tell policy (2011), extension of family benefits with the implementation of legal same-sex marriage (2015), and most recently the lifting of blanket restrictions on the service of military women (2016). This section will highlight some examples of diversity- and inclusion-related issues, summarized in Box 4-6, but as is the case with this chapter more generally, this high-level review is by no means complete. Furthermore, it does not capture the complexity of the issues represented in the literature that a deeper dive on any one of these topics could provide.

BOX 4-6

Examples of Prominent Themes Associated with Diversity and Inclusion.

Variability Across and Within Groups

As discussed in Chapter 2, ecological and family systems theories emphasize the embeddedness of individuals within multiple, reciprocal, and interacting contexts. As helpful as these frameworks are in identifying interactions that influence individual and family development, they do not capture systematic or structural inequity, such as race- and gender-based discrimination and attitudes, which may affect military families who are members of marginalized groups. An intersectional lens can serve as an organizing framework for understanding how overlapping social statuses, including gender, race, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status, connect individual service member and family experiences to structural (macro) realities (Bogard et al., 2017; Bowleg, 2012).

Each military service member and each family member is positioned within a unique social location and occupies multiple social statuses, which helps to explain the tremendous diversity in individual service members' responses to what appear to be similar military and life experiences. Minority stress theory (Meyer 2003) spotlights minority group members' unique experiences of chronic stresses stemming from social institutions in addition to their everyday experiences of racial bias. When applied to sexual minorities, analysis tends to focus on stresses related to heteronormative bias and anti-LGBT experiences.

Discrimination or even suspected discrimination in promotion, job assignments, assigned duties within a position,¹⁶ opportunities for promotion and career development, and the enforcement of rules and regulations can be a detrimental stressor to the well-being of service members. Intersectionality is also a useful concept in understanding “the intersectional nature of resilience” (Santos and Toomey, 2018, p. 9), which reflects the ability of military service members and their families to function well in spite of significant disadvantages, stresses, or experiences of inequity.

Taken together, ecological, life-course, and intersectional models of individual and family well-being all indicate that what is most effective at supporting military families is not a one-size-fits-all approach but rather a variety of approaches that seek to align programs with the diverse needs of service members, diverse family constellations, and local social contexts (Lerner, 2007). Of course, this is not meant to imply that a custom program must be developed for each military family. The point is that DoD and local service providers cannot make assumptions based on one or two characteristics at a given point in time (e.g., single newly enlisted service member, deployed parent, Latinx Marine) about what is most important to military personnel and military family members, what they need, or what is the best way to support them. Instead, they must take into account the perceptions, priorities, and preferences of service members and their families; provide a range of types of support from which to draw (e.g., mode of communication, military vs. nonmilitary); and ensure that the support networks contain providers with knowledge about and sensitivity to the needs of different subgroups (e.g., noncitizens and immigrants, male sexual assault victims, religious minorities).

Servicewomen in the Military

Women make up one-half of the U.S. population but only 17.5 percent of the total force (DoD, 2017c, p. 6). Notably, relatively few servicewomen occupy leadership positions at the officer ranks of colonel and admiral/general (DACOWITS, 2015). Findings from the most recent (2017) DACOWITS report indicate that women often identify different reasons for joining the military than men do, that they are more likely than men to be married to another service member (both within and across services), and that they separate from the military earlier in their careers than do men. Key factors in servicewomen's decisions to leave the military relate to the challenges of geographic separation from family, both because of deployment and inability to co-locate with a service member spouse; pressure to prioritize one's military career among dual- military service members; and difficulties with work-life-family balance. In addition, servicewomen are more likely than men to separate from the military prior to starting a family (Clever and Segal, 2013).

Globally, 74 foreign militaries allow or require women to serve, including 13 in which combat roles are open to servicewomen (DACOWITS 2017). Among militaries that have successfully integrated women, policies to support servicewomen include flexible parental leave policies, co-location and geographic stability, and comprehensive and affordable child care that can accommodate long shifts, nontraditional working hours, and care for ill children. DACOWITS (2017) presented recommendations to increase DoD's ability to attract and retain servicewomen that similarly emphasize policies supporting families with children, educational initiatives to address unhelpful perceptions related to gender roles, and protocols for appropriate physical training for women. Findings also indicate that servicewomen are disproportionately affected by findings of noncompliance with family care plans, indicating a need for more appropriate application of these protocols.

There is very little research on motherhood in the military, and almost no research on the impact on families of a military mother's deployment to war (see, e.g., Barnes et al., 2016). A series of studies of Navy mothers during the Gulf War indicated that anxiety and distress increased among the children of those who were deployed more than among children of the nondeployed (Kelley et al., 2001). Among deployed Navy mothers, length of separation from families and perceptions of social support both contributed to psychological adjustment (Kelley et al., 2002). More recent research on a sample of mothers who deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan reported that reintegrating mothers experienced more adverse past-year life events, and more depression and PTSD symptoms, than nondeployed mothers (of deployed spouses), but this research did not report worse parenting, couple functioning, or child adjustment (Gewirtz et al., 2014). More research is needed to examine the adjustment of deployed mothers, how programs and policies may affect them (Goodman et al., 2013), and other factors that may affect these mothers, such as societal norms that stigmatize a mother's leaving her children for war as “non-maternal” behavior (Gewirtz et al., 2014).

Segal and Lane (2016) bring attention to contextual factors within military culture and everyday life that likely affect servicewomen's well-being. Specifically, they identify “leadership behaviors” that set the tone for how women are treated by their male peers and commanders as well as social isolation that can result from being ostracized within a unit. As part of the 2017 DACOWITS research, focus group participants similarly indicated that servicewomen may be disadvantaged by cultural attitudes based on traditional gender roles, especially as women begin to move into previously closed combat and leadership roles. Segal and Lane (2016) bring to light gender-based sexual harassment, ranging from inappropriate behavior—such as sexual comments, jokes, offensive pictures or posters, and gestures—to criminal-level assault. Recent estimates find that servicewomen report and experience sexual harassment and sexual assault at higher rates than male service members (Davis et al., 2017; Galovski and Sanders, 2018) and that sexual trauma is likely underreported due to concerns about safety, stigma, avoidance, and shame (Galovski and Sanders, 2018). Relatedly, servicewomen are more likely than servicemen to be harassed or stalked online and through social media (DACOWITS, 2017, p. 76). The psychological impact of sexual trauma on servicewomen can be especially disruptive to fulfilling service roles, family functioning, parenting, and child outcomes (Kimerling et al., 2010; Millegan et al., 2015; Rosellini et al., 2017; Suris et al., 2013).

Segal and Lane (2016) assert that women's gynecological, contraceptive, and pregnancy-related needs are not fully and universally accessible across settings, including deployment environments. Pregnancy, new motherhood, and maternity leave can disadvantage servicewomen in several ways. Pregnancies do not always occur only and precisely when desired, and their timing can make it more difficult to manage work demands and attract harmful stigma, such as accusations of having become pregnant to avoid sea duty or deployment. Added to this, pregnancies and new motherhood can involve new physical and emotional health challenges, such as problematic pregnancies, problems at birth, difficulties breastfeeding, managing post-pregnancy physical fitness and weight requirements, and suffering from post-partum depression (Appolinio and Fingerhut, 2008).

However, the committee notes that in recent years, granting of parental leave for service members has become more common in order to increase recruitment and retention in the Armed Forces. Recent changes to military parental leave mandated in the FY 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (Section 521 of the enacted bill) authorize

up to 12 weeks of total leave (including up to 6 weeks convalescent leave) for the primary caregiver in connection with the birth of the child. It also authorizes 6 weeks of leave for a primary caregiver in the case of an adoption of a child and up to 21 days of leave for a secondary caregiver in the case of a birth or adoption. – (Sec. 521, p. 19)¹⁷

More research will be needed to examine the consequences of these policy changes for service members, as well as their impact on family well-being.

Finally, with the full integration of women into combat roles, attention has turned to women's physiology and ability to meet the military's physical standards for combat and related roles. DACOWITS (2017) reports that because of physiological differences between women and men, physical training and nutritional protocols designed for men, such as “large field training” and cardio focus, may not be most efficient for women, and point to sports science and human performance approaches (pp. 55–57) to prepare all service members.

LGBT Status

The history of military policy related to sexual orientation, gender identity, and military service has developed in tandem with broader changes in social attitudes and evolving state and federal legislation in the post-9/11 period. Three pieces of legislation during the Obama administration represented a sea change in federal and military policy: (1) the 2009 Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr., Hate Crimes Prevention Act; (2) the 2011 repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell (DADT); and (3) the 2015 legalization of same-sex marriage by the U.S. Supreme Court (Obergefell v. Hodges). Additionally, in 2016 the secretary of defense ended the ban on transgender service (although as noted in Chapter 3, those advances have been rolled back effective April 2019).

LGBT service members enlist at higher rates than heterosexual people and identify diverse reasons for joining (Ramirez and Bloeser, 2018) that extend beyond patriotism, altruism, and commitment to public service. For example, given the troubling rates of family rejection of LGBT youth (Zimmerman et al., 2015), some LGB service members enlist as a mechanism to escape fraught home environments (Legate et al., 2012). For some men, the hypermasculine culture of the military may be appealing, while for lesbian women, the military allows a laser focus on career and mission rather than gender-bound heteronormative roles of motherhood and marriage (Ramirez and Bloeser, 2018).

In population health research, sexual minorities have been found to be at risk for multiple health and mental health burdens when compared to heterosexuals (Hatzenbuehler, 2009). Minority stress theory (Meyer, 2003) articulates that members of sexual minorities experience excess and accumulated stress, including stigma, prejudice, and discrimination, and often expend significant energy to remain vigilant to environmental and interpersonal threats, safety, and disclosure of sexuality. In addition, for LGBT recruits, self-awareness regarding sexual orientation or the decision to live as their gender rather than birth sex and the coming out process often coincide with socialization into military culture.

Until the federal legalization of same-sex marriage, military policy and practice under DADT also interfered with lesbian, gay, and bisexual service members' family functioning and well-being (Kelty and Segal, 2013) by requiring concealment, excluding same-sex partners and children from receiving benefits, and limiting same-sex partners from participating in family roles.¹⁸ In addition, concerns about being outed and career repercussions prevented many sexual minority service members from seeking help and support under DADT (Mount et al., 2015).

With the legalization of same-sex marriage in 2015, DoD began immediate efforts to extend benefits to spouses and children of sexual minority service members, and in 2016 new health care and service options became available for transgender service members. However, because these important policy changes are very recent, we still know little about LGBT service members, couples, parents, and families. However, some findings are emerging. A DoD systematic review indicated that active-duty lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals may be at increased risk for sexual assault victimization (DoD, 2016c). DoD's 2015 Health Related Behaviors Survey found that LGBT personnel were as likely as other personnel to receive routine medical care and less likely to be overweight, but more likely to engage in risky behaviors such as binge drinking, cigarette smoking, unprotected sex with a new partner, and having more than one sexual partner in the past year (Meadows et al., 2018, pp. xxx–xxxi). LGBT personnel were also more likely to report moderate or severe depression, lifetime history of self-injury, lifetime suicide ideation, lifetime suicide attempt, suicide attempt in the previous 12 months, lifetime history of unwanted sexual contact, or ever being physical abused (Meadows et al., 2018, p. xxxi). Although these highlights describe LGBT people as a group, of course their needs and experiences vary. For example, “transgender” refers to a gender identity, not a sexual orientation, and a ban against transgender military service was just reinstated.

Lessons from foreign military forces in which LGBT personnel have been integrated, which date from the 1970s (in 1974 in the Netherlands), indicate that LGBT integration has had no effect on readiness or effectiveness there (Belkin and McNichol, 2000–2001, 2000). Rather, environments which are inclusive of sexual orientations and gender identities are positively linked to mental health, well-being, and productivity among LGBT individuals, which in turn benefits morale, cohesion, and recruitment and retention (Polchar et al., 2014).

A hallmark of best military personnel practices is maintaining policies that are inclusive, especially in the context of international and multinational cooperation among diverse nations (e.g., NATO, 2016, p. 45). Relevant to LGBT personnel, best practices include intentional “top-down” leadership demanding respectful conduct, and attention to deployment environments in which LGBT service members may be at greater risk because of local attitudes or local laws, including criminal statutes against same-sex relationships or sexual practices (Polchar et al., 2014, p. 13, p. 50). The most inclusive military systems, including Australia's, encourage and even require disclosure of sexual orientation within the context of national security (Polchar et al., 2014, p. 57).

The National Defense Research Institute Report (Rostker et al., 2010) concludes that the ability of LGBT persons to serve openly can increase unit trust and cohesion, enhance the well-being and performance of LGBT service members, and reduce LGBT vulnerability in out-of-country assignments and deployment environments (such as blackmail by enemy combatants), among other reasons. Common to foreign nations that have integrated LGBT service members are education and training related to fair treatment of all personnel and clear anti-discrimination policies (Azoulay et al., 2010).

Race and Ethnicity

Demographic trends in the general population indicate that the United States will become a majority-minority nation within the next generation. With only one percent of the U.S. population volunteering for military service, the current demographics of military personnel and their families do not reflect those of the population as a whole (see Chapter 3). Rather, racial and ethnic minorities, including immigrants, are more likely to consider military service than White people, and specific regions of the country, in particular several states with high percentages of Hispanics or Latinx, are over-represented (Bennett and McDonald, 2013; Council on Foreign Relations, 2015; also Elder et al., 2010). During the long wars, immigrant service members have provided critical language skills, including the roles of translator and interpreter, and offered needed cross-cultural expertise (Council on Foreign Relations, 2009; Stock, 2009).

Several scholars have concluded that the life-course impact of service for ethnic-minority families is “generally positive” and that service provides important opportunities to groups that might not have alternative pathways to socioeconomic independence and sustainability (Burland and Lundquist, 2013, p. 186). Black service members in the forces are accessing educational benefits through the GI bill at higher rates today than in earlier cohorts (Lutz, 2013, p. 75).

The scholarship on diversity and inclusion has made important contributions in the realm of exploring equal opportunity-related issues: accessions, mentors, promotions and assignments, distributions across occupations and paygrades, and discrimination and harassment (Asch et al., 2012; Booth and Segal, 2005; Lim et al., 2014; Military Leadership Diversity Commission, 2011; Parco and Levy, 2010; Rohall et al., 2017; Tick et al., 2015). All of this scholarship is important and relevant for service member and family well-being, although gaps in our understanding remain.

It is common for DoD surveys and academic studies of military family well-being to include race and ethnicity as variables and report on significant differences, but greater synthesis across the research is needed. For example, several studies indicate that racial/ethnic minority status is linked to higher self-reported rates of PTSD (Burk and Espinoza, 2012; DeVoe et al., 2017; Meadows et al., 2018) and that the positive benefits service has on families' well-being for ethnic-minority service members do not extend to combat veterans (MacLean, 2013). Other racial/ethnic differences include higher prevalence of overweight among Hispanics and non-Hispanic Blacks in the military (Reyes-Guzman et al., 2015) and various differences in health-related behaviors, such as smoking (non-Hispanic blacks were least likely to smoke) and hazardous and disordered drinking (more likely among non-Hispanic whites) (Meadows et al., 2018, p. xxxvii).

No synthesis across the literature has yet been carried out concerning how race and ethnicity relate to military family well-being. Additionally, little attention has been paid to exploring the priorities of racial and ethnic minority families to answer such questions as, What are the top problems and needs of minority service members and their families? and, Is the Military Family Readiness System addressing these problems and needs or helping minority service members and their families address them?

Families in the Exceptional Family Member Program

The Office of Special Needs was established in 2010¹⁹ to enhance and improve DoD support for military families with special medical or educational needs. The office operates in and oversees the Exceptional Family Member Program (EFMP), the provision of services pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and a DoD Advisory Panel on Community Support for Military Families with Special Needs (Office of Special Needs, 2018).

Enrollment in the EFMP is mandatory for active component service members who have a family member with special medical or educational needs (EFMP, 2016). Approximately 133,000 military family members are enrolled in the EFMP (Office of Special Needs, 2018; GAO, 2018b). The EFMP helps families in two ways:

1.

Documenting family members' special needs, so that the availability of necessary services is considered during personnel assignment decisions.

2.

Identifying and accessing relevant information and military programs and services.

In a benchmark study of the EFMP (Bronfenbrenner Center for Translational Research, 2013), military families enrolled in the EFMP expressed concerns regarding stigma surrounding special needs family members and military career advancement. Focus groups and interviews with service members, family members, and service providers across eight CONUS installations revealed that some families initially did not enroll in EFMP, disassociated from EFMP services, or hid their family member's needs because of embarrassment and because of fears that they would miss out on assignments important for career advancement or reenlistment opportunities. Although current policy directs that assignments should be managed to prevent adverse impact on careers (DoD, 2017d), service members may still face difficult choices. To illustrate, an officer might have to decide whether to

• turn down a key command opportunity overseas or in a domestic remote and isolated location, because the area has limited resources to support the family member,
• take the career-enhancing assignment, but serve geographically separated from the family for 2 years, leaving someone else to care for the family member with special needs, or
• take the family member along, try to compensate for the resource limitations, hope the condition does not worsen, and if on an unaccompanied tour overseas, be responsible for the cost of sending the family member back.

Within EFMP families, members with special needs are not the only ones who may need assistance. For example, deployments can present additional challenges, as the nondeployed parent can become overwhelmed managing care for EFMP family members, on top of all of the other family and household responsibilities while the service member is away from home (Bronfenbrenner Center for Translational Research, 2013). The nondeployed parent (or other caregiver) may have to quit their job or reduce their work hours to manage, which in turn can negatively impact the family's financial well-being. Especially in circumstances like these, the sole caregiver can have a dire need for respite care. Siblings may also become caregivers as well, assisting their brother or sister who, for example, has limited physical abilities or behavioral problems. While they may enjoy that role, it may also limit what else they are able to do in terms of extracurricular activities, socializing with friends, interacting with parents, or having time to themselves.

Each Service runs its own EFMP, so one of DoD's roles is to help ensure consistency and successful implementation (Office of Special Needs, 2018). However, a recent GAO report raised questions about whether there were gaps in services based on wide variation in the ratio of EFMP staff to EFMP service members, the types of program activities, and the low number of service plans given the number of enrollees and requirement that all should have plans (GAO, 2018). GAO recommended that DoD develop common performance metrics and evaluate the Services' monitoring activities, and DoD agreed and plans to do so (GAO, 2018).

A recent study of EFMP family support providers provides some insight into the types of special needs in military families (Aronson et al., 2016). The study participants were EFMP professionals who help families document the special needs and connect them to information, services, and support groups. The researchers asked whether the providers worked with families dealing with any 1 of 13 specific special health care or educational needs. Most (93 to 94%) reported working with military dependents with autism and dependents with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Each of the following types of disabilities were encountered by more than 80 percent of these family support providers: emotional/behavioral disorder, speech and language disorder, developmental delay, asthma, and mental health problems (Aronson et al., 2016).

In the same study, the providers were asked to share their impression of the impact on EFMP families of each of 12 specific challenges (including educational concerns, child behavior problems, parent stress). Of the 12 challenges, 8 were perceived to have an impact ranging on average from “moderate extent” to “great extent.” Educational concerns about children were reported as the foremost issue. The next most prominent issues for families were navigating systems (e.g., school, community, or military), child behavior problems, parent mental health or stress, child care issues, and medical problems (Aronson et al., 2016).

Many of these concerns were exacerbated by the frequency of and associated stress of relocation. Lack of continuity associated with changing doctors, carrying over prescriptions, re-applying for referrals, creating new individualized education plans (IEPs), and the like can be stressful for both the families attempting to manage the care and support their loved one and the family member with special needs. Such delays leave the family member with special needs with gaps in necessary care. A recurring issue that EFMP family support providers reported, which related to their own work, was a lack of information sharing that would alert them to incoming families and their needs so that the providers could start assisting with the transition prior to the move.

Note that EFMP is not the only type of support for military family members with special needs, but it should be able to refer families to appropriate resources and help them understand their rights and protections. Figure 4-2 illustrates overlapping types of programs for children with special needs: (1) Exceptional Family Member (EFM) Program; (2) Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) special education; and (3) school-related services or accommodation through Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (MCEC, 2005, p. 29). Both IDEA and Section 504 aim to ensure that students with disabilities are able to receive a free and appropriate education.

FIGURE 4-2

Overlapping eligibility for programs serving children with special needs. SOURCE: MCEC (2005, p. 29).

Although this section tended to discuss “special needs” generally, keep in mind that this represents a great deal of variability in type, severity, and persistence of disability and variability in associated needs. It encompasses autism, blindness, deafness, learning disabilities, speech disorders, cerebral palsy, spina bifida, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and many other physical, mental and psychological disabilities, and of course dependents can have more than one, and families can have more than one member who has special needs.

For some families, the benefits and accommodations the military makes to support families with special needs are an incentive to remain on active duty. The advantages include medical benefits afforded to the EFMP family members and assistance coordinating with schools and other programs and services. They also include the service member having the ability to take time off of work to manage the special needs (although some supervisors might be more stringent) without worrying about getting fired or losing money the way one might in a civilian job if required to “clock out.” Even if a family member with special needs is high-functioning, the service member might need to take that dependent to appointments and work with the schools on developing an Individualized Education Program (IEP).

TRANSITION OUT OF MILITARY SERVICE

Military personnel and their family members transition away from military life for a wide variety of reasons, in different life stages, and after differing levels and types of exposure to military life. Box 4-7 summarizes some key characteristics of this transition, although they are just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the post-service adjustments and post-service trajectories of veterans and their families.

BOX 4-7

Examples of Prominent Themes Associated with Transition from Military to Civilian Life.

Service members may die as a result of military operations, accidents, suicide, or other causes that may or may not clearly relate to their service. Such deaths can be emotionally traumatic to the family and can lead to additional challenges, such as having to leave the military community (even having to move, if they live in military housing), and losing the military pay and benefits associated with service. Post-death benefits, such as the death gratuity, are one type of military benefit for which service members can designate nonmilitary dependents to be recipients, including nonmarital partners and parents.

Service members may separate from military service voluntarily or involuntarily. Some will choose or be required to leave before their initial term of service is complete, but most will face decisions about whether to begin an additional term of service. As the size of the military expands and contracts over time, due to the changing scope of missions and congressional authorizations for personnel, periodically individuals are required or incentivized to leave military service before their current term ends. Additionally, in the event of war, the military can issue a “stop loss” to prevent service members from leaving at the end of their contracts; or, if authorized by the Presidential Reserve Callup Authority, the military can call back to active-duty individuals who had already separated or retired but had not completed their period on “Individual Ready Reserve” status (e.g., as was done to provide ground forces for deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan).

Retirement has traditionally been possible after 20 years of service, once any terms of service have been met, such as obligations after receiving additional schooling. Former spouses may be awarded a portion of a retiree's pay as a part of a divorce proceeding. As noted earlier, the new Blended Retirement System provides alternatives to this traditional system that resemble many private sector 401(k) plans.

After leaving the military, service members and their families may choose to stay in the same area as the last duty station, although those living in family housing will have to move off of the installation. Or they may move to pursue a job opportunity, live closer to relatives, live in a favorite part of the country, or live where there are other military-connected individuals and resources. The Transition to Veteran Policy Office (TVPO) is responsible for policy and implementation of the Transition Assistance Program (TAP),²⁰ operated by 300 Family Support Centers at military installations worldwide. TAP offers a number of services and resources including counseling, employment assistance, information on veterans' benefits, and other employment and family support. An analysis of data on the use of support services administered by transition assistance centers is underway (GAO, 2019).

Some veterans use their GI Bill benefits to attend college after they leave the service. Many are drawn to the career focus and flexibility offered by for-profit educational institutions; however, some of those schools have been found to prey upon veterans and have high dropout rates and low postgraduation employment rates (Guo et al., 2016, p. 9).

Research on recent veteran populations finds that their workforce participation rates and unemployment are similar to the rates of comparable civilians, although personnel separating at a young age (18 to 24) appear to face some employment hurdles when initially transitioning (Guo et al., 2016, p. 2). Tax credits for hiring veterans appear to be both beneficial and cost-effective: one study found that a 2007 tax credit expansion resulted in the employment of 32,000 disabled veterans in 2007 and 2009 who would have otherwise been unemployed (Guo et al., 2016, p. 4).

Multiple studies have found that both service members and veterans earn more than their comparable civilian counterparts and that service members who worked in health care, communications, or intelligence occupations saw larger earnings in their post-military careers than other veterans (Guo et al., 2016, p. 5). One study that focused on women veterans' civilian labor market earnings found that military service was even more of an advantage for racial and ethnic minority women than it was for White women veterans, so much so that it raised their earnings as high as, or in some cases higher than, White nonveterans' earnings (Padavic and Prokos, 2017).

For veterans and their family members, the transition to civilian life can be made more difficult by physical disabilities or conditions, such as chronic pain, or by mental health challenges, such as posttraumatic stress disorder or major depression (which are discussed in Chapter 5). Multiple surveys suggest that veterans who served as officers have better health than those who were enlisted (MacLean and Edwards, 2010). Women veterans appear to be more likely to have a disability or function limitation than veterans who are men (Prokos and Cabage, 2017; Wilmoth et al., 2011). As veterans move from the DoD health care system to the VA, they may find challenges to maintaining continuity of care, and not all veterans who need treatment will receive it (IOM, 2013).

Yet studies of past generations of war veterans have found that the long-term outcomes of military service are positive. The benefits of military service include not only education and economic gains but also positive coping strategies, the ability to withstand stress, and other resilience factors that can promote lifelong health and well-being (Spiro et al., 2015).

SUMMARY

Military life can offer tremendous benefits but also significant challenges. Some who enter will thrive, others will struggle or fail. Not everyone who enters will be willing or able to remain a military family member until the service members' transition to civilian life. The ongoing work for DoD, however, is to help prevent, mitigate, and respond to the negative impact of stressors to promote the well-being, readiness, effectiveness, and retention of quality service members and their families. Some of the challenges mentioned above may extend to parents, grandparents, siblings, close friends, and others in service members' personal networks, such as military separation from loved ones, concern about the safety of service members working in dangerous environments, and caring for service members' children or seriously injured service members.

Some events specifically related to military life can impact not just the service member but also other individuals in the family and subsystems within the family. Most notably, these include

• pay and in-kind benefits, such as housing and health care
• PCS moves
• assignments to installations in other countries
• deployments, sea duty, and temporary duty away from home
• combat experience and exposure
• service-related mental and physical injuries and death
• career progression (or lack thereof), and
• separation from military service and transition to civilian life.

The opportunities and challenges of military life change as the size of the military expands or contracts; as the civilian economy improves or declines; as the number, length and nature of military operations changes; and as public knowledge and attitudes toward the military change.

These types of military experiences will vary across different subgroups and regions, too. For example, military life experiences such as frequency and length of deployments, options of installation assignments, and career progression are often linked to military occupation, and military occupations vary greatly in their personnel composition (e.g., by entry requirements, race, ethnicity, gender, and concentration in the active component or National Guard or Reserves). Additionally, some military families have significantly more privileges and resources than others. The differences in pay mean senior military officers are much more likely than junior enlisted personnel to be able to afford to locate their families in neighborhoods with greater resources and better schools; to hire help with housekeeping, yardwork, or tutoring; to be able to fly other family members out to visit; to pay for their children's college education, and so on. Regardless of the resources a family may have, however, some installations are located in areas where there are few or low-quality resources, or where the resources are already overtaxed because the civilian population has great needs. Thus, we reiterate here our call in Chapter 3 to be attentive to the ways intersectionality or overlapping statuses of numerous characteristics can shape how individual family members and families experience and interpret the events and features of military life.

It also bears repeating that we have more information on the life course of service members and military dependents than we do on partners, children who are not military dependents, and other military family members, as well as more information on historically majority subgroups in the military (e.g., men, Whites, heterosexuals).

Given finite resources and a vast array of possible challenges, the need is for DoD to find the best way to prioritize and focus its efforts to enhance the well-being of diverse military families, without compromising its ability to meet its missions. An important question to answer toward this end is: What are the most beneficial and meaningful types of interventions, guidance, and support that DoD could offer to achieve this?

CONCLUSIONS

CONCLUSION 4-1: Studies on the roles and impacts of nonmarital partners, ex-spouses, or ex-partners, parents, siblings, grandparents, and others in the personal networks of service members are scarce, despite the significant positive or negative influences those people could have or the important roles they could play in some situations, such as child custody disputes, respite child care, temporary guardianship of children during parents' deployments, and other situations.

CONCLUSION 4-2: There is a lack of understanding of how military family well-being varies by race and ethnicity, the concerns of minority families, and whether the Department of Defense is sufficiently meeting these families' needs. Scholarship on racial/ethnic diversity in the military tends to focus on equal opportunity issues for service members (such as discrimination and promotion rates), whereas findings concerning well-being are scattered widely across the literature.

CONCLUSION 4-3: The frequency of mandatory military moves and the associated stress of relocation create challenges for the continuity of care for active component military families, especially families who have members with special needs and must rely heavily upon community resources.

CONCLUSION 4-4: Since the end of the Cold War, the National Guard and Reserves have served at unprecedented levels, filling critical roles in disaster relief and homeland defense in the United States as well as serving in military operations overseas. However, they face frequent family separations, changes in pay and benefits eligibility associated with shifting military statuses, and disruptions to civilian employment and business ownership, and they may not even live near a military community that could provide formal or informal support.

REFERENCES

• Appolonio KK, Fingerhut R. Postpartum depression in a military sample. Military Medicine. 2008;173(11):1085–1991. [PubMed: 19055183]
• Aronson KR, Kyler SJ, Moeller JD, Perkins DF. Understanding military families who have dependents with special health care and/or educational needs. Disability and Health Journal. 2016;9(3):423–430. [PubMed: 27157311]
• Arthur DA. Increasing Costs of the Department of Defense. Washington, DC: Congressional Budget Office; 2018. Retrieved from https://www​.cbo.gov/publication/54688.
• Asch BJ, Miller T, Malchiodi A. A New Look at Gender and Minority Differences in Officer Career Progression in the Military. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation; 2012.
• Azoulay D, Chung J, Simcovitch J, Sukumar S, Supawong J. Open Service and Our Allies: A Report on the Inclusion of Openly Gay and Lesbian Servicemembers in U.S. Allies' Armed Forces. NewYork: Columbia Law School Sexuality & Gender Law Clinic; 2010.
• Balderrama-Durbin C, Cigrang JA, Osborne LJ, Snyder DK, Talcott GW, Slep AMS, Heyman RE, Tatum J, Baker M, Cassidy D, Sonnek S. Coming home: A prospective study of family reintegration following deployment to a war zone. Psychological Services. 2015;12(3):213. [PubMed: 26213790]
• Balderrama-Durbin C, Erbes CR, Polusny MA, Vogt D. Psychometric evaluation of a measure of intimate partner communication during deployment. Journal of Family Psychology. 2018;32(1):31–41. [PubMed: 29543485]
• Barnes R, Stevelink SAM, Dandeker C, Fear NT. Military mothers. In: Gewirtz A, Youssef A, editors. Parenting and Children's Resilience in Military Families: Risk and Resilience in Military and Veteran Families. NewYork: Springer; 2016.
• Belkin A, McNichol J. Homosexual personnel policy in the Canadian forces: Did lifting the gay ban undermine military performance? International Journal. 2000/2001, Winter;56:73–88. 10.2307/4020353.
• Belkin A, McNichol J. Effects of the 1992 Lifting of Restrictions on Gay and Lesbian Service in the Canadian Forces: Appraising the Evidence. Santa Barbara, CA: Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military; 2000.
• Bennett PR, McDonald KB. Military service as a pathway to early socioeconomic achievement for disadvantaged groups. In: Wilmoth JM, London AS, editors. Life Course Perspectives on Military Service. New York, NY: Routledge; 2013. pp. 119–143.
• Bogard K, Murry VM, Alexander C, editors. Perspectives on Health Equity and Social Determinants of Health. Washington, DC: National Academy of Medicine; 2017.
• Booth B, Segal DR. Bringing the soldiers back in: Implications of inclusion of military personnel for labor market research on race, class, and gender. Race, Gender & Class. 2005;12(1):34–57.
• Boss P. Family Stress Management: A Contextual Approach. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2002.
• Bowleg L. The problem with the phrase Women and Minorities: Intersectionality—An important theoretical framework for public health. American Journal of Public Health. 2012;102:1267–1273. [PMC free article: PMC3477987] [PubMed: 22594719]
• Bowles SV, Pollock LD, Moore M, Wadsworth SM, Cato C, Dekle JW, Meyer SW, Shriver A, Mueller B, Stephens M, Seidler DA. Total force fitness: The military family fitness model. Military Medicine. 2015;180(3):246–258. [PubMed: 25735013]
• Bradshaw CP, Sudhinaraset M, Mmari K, Blum RW. School transitions among military adolescents: A qualitative study of stress and coping. School Psychology Review. 2010;39(1):84–105.
• Bronfenbrenner Center for Translational Research. Department of Defense Exceptional Family Member Benchmark Study. Ithaca, NY: Author; 2013.
• Burk J, Espinoza E. Race relations within the U.S. military. Annual Review of Sociology. 2012;38:401–422.
• Burke J, Miller AR. The effects of job relocation on spousal careers: Evidence from military change of station moves. Economic Inquiry. 2018;56(2):1261–1277.
• Burland D, Lundquist JH. The best years of our lives: Military service and family relationships—A life-course perspective. In: Wilmoth JM, London AS, editors. Life Course Perspectives on Military Service. New York, NY: Routledge; 2013. pp. 189–208.
• Burrell LM, Adams GA, Durand DB, Castro CA. The impact of military lifestyle demands on well-being, army, and family outcomes. Armed Forces & Society. 2006;33(1):43–58.
• Carroll TD, Currier JM, McCormick WH, Drescher KD. Adverse childhood experiences and risk for suicidal behavior in male Iraq and Afghanistan veterans seeking PTSD treatment. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy. 2017;9(5):583–586. [PubMed: 28080076]
• Carter P, Kidder K, Schafer A, Swick A. The Future of the All-Volunteer Force. 2017. (Working paper AVF 4.0. Center for New American Security). Retrieved from https://s3​.amazonaws​.com/files.cnas.org/documents​/AVF_WorkingPaper_FINAL​.pdf?mtime=20170328111409.
• Carter SP, Renshaw KD. Spousal communication during military deployments: A review. Journal of Family Issues. 2016;37(16):2309–2332.
• Chandra A, Lara-Cinisomo S, Jaycox LH, Tanielian T, Han B, Burns RM, Ruder T. Views From the Homefront: The Experiences of Youth and Spouses from Military Families. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation; 2011. [PMC free article: PMC4945219] [PubMed: 28083168]
• Chandra A, Martin LT, Hawkins SA, Richardson A. The impact of parental deployment on child social and emotional functioning: Perspectives of school staff. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2010;46(3):218–223. [PubMed: 20159497]
• Chartrand MM, Frank DA, White LF, Shope TR. Effect of parents' wartime deployment on the behavior of young children in military families. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine. 2008;162(11):1009–1014. [PubMed: 18981347]
• Clever M, Segal DR. The demographics of military children and families. The Future of Children. 2013;23(2):13–39. [PubMed: 25518690]
• Commission on the National Guard and Reserves. Transforming the National Guard and Reserves into a 21st Century Operational Force. Arlington, VA: Commission on the National Guard and Reserves; 2008. Retrieved from https://policy​.defense​.gov/portals/11/Documents​/hdasa/references​/CNGR%20Final%20Report.pdf.
• Congressional Budget Office. Trends in the Department of Defense's Support Costs. Washington, DC: 2017. Retrieved from https://www​.cbo.gov/publication/53168.
• Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). U.S. Immigration Policy. New York, NY: 2009. (Independent Task Force Report No 63). Retrieved from file:​///C:/Users/pnalamada​/Downloads/Immigration_TFR63​%20(1).pdf.
• Cozza CSJ, Lerner RM. Military children and families: Introducing the issue. The Future of Children. 2013:3–11. [PubMed: 25518689]
• Davis L, Grifka A, Williams K, Coffey M. 2016 Workplace and Gender Relations Survey of Active Duty Members. U.S. Department of Defense; Alexandria, VA: 2017. Retrieved from https://sapr​.mil/public​/docs/reports/FY17_Annual​/FY16_Annual​_Report_on_Sexual_Assault​_in_the_Military​_Full_Report_Part2_4.pdf.
• Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Service (DACOWITS). 1951-2015: 64 Years of DACOWITS 2015.Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Defense; 2015. Retrieved from https://dacowits​.defense​.gov/Portals/48/Documents​/Reports/2015​/Annual%20Report/2015​%20DACOWITS%20Annual%20Report_Final​.pdf.
• Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Service (DACOWITS). Annual Report 2017. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Defense; 2017. Retrieved from https://dacowits​.defense​.gov/Portals/48/Documents​/Reports/2017​/Annual%20Report/DACOWITS​%202017%20Annual%20Report_FINAL​.PDF?ver​=2018-02-28-222504-937.
• Defense Manpower Data Center. Military Family Life Project: Active Duty Spouse Study Longitudinal Analyses 2010-2012 Project Report. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department of Defense; 2015. Retrieved from http://download​.militaryonesource​.mil/12038​/MOS/Reports/MFLP-Longitudinal-Analyses-Report.pdf.
• DeVoe ER, Paris R, Emmert-Aronson B, Ross A, Acker M. A randomized clinical trial of a postdeployment parenting intervention for service members and their families with very young children. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy. 2017;9(S1):25. [PubMed: 27710006]
• Easterbrooks MA, Ginsburg K, Lerner RM. Resilience among military youth. The Future of Children. 2013;23(2):99–120. [PubMed: 25518694]
• Elder GH, Wang L, Spence NJ, Adkins DE, Brown TH. Pathways to the all-volunteer military. Social Science Quarterly. 2010;91(2):455–475. [PMC free article: PMC3181144] [PubMed: 21960728]
• Exceptional Family Member Program (EFMP). EFMP Quick Reference Guide. 2016. Retrieved from https://download​.militaryonesource​.mil/12038​/MOS/ResourceGuides​/EFMP-QuickReferenceGuide.pdf.
• Erbes CR, Kramer M, Arbisi PA, DeGarmo D, Polusny MA. Characterizing spouse/partner depression and alcohol problems over the course of military deployment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2017;85(4):297. [PubMed: 28333532]
• Figinski TF. The effect of potential activations on the employment of military reservists: Evidence from a field experiment. ILR Review. 2017;70(4):1037–1056.
• Flake EM, Davis BE, Johnson PL, Middleton LS. The psychosocial effects of deployment on military children. Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics. 2009;30(4):271–278. [PubMed: 19606059]
• Flores NI. The Current Burdensome Pay Processes of the Mobilized Army National Guard Soldier: Finding Better Options. A thesis presented to the faculty of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree Master of Military Art and Science General Studies. 2009. Retrieved from https://apps​.dtic.mil​/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a512322.pdf.
• Floyd L, Phillips DA. Child care and other support programs. Future of Children. 2013;23(2):79–97. [PubMed: 25518693]
• Galovski TE, Sanders W. Strengthening Support for Female Service Members Suffering from PTSD Secondary to Military-connected Sexual Trauma. Memo prepared for the Committee on the Wellbeing of Military Families; 2018.
• Gates G. Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Men and Women in the U.S. military: Updated estimates. Los Angeles, CA: Williams Institute; 2010.
• Gates GJ, Herman J. Transgender Military Service in the United States. Los Angeles, CA: Williams Institute; 2014.
• Gewirtz AH, DeGarmo DS, Zamir O. Testing a military family stress model. Family Process. 2018;57:415–431. 10.1111/famp.12282. [PMC free article: PMC6788861] [PubMed: 28299783]
• Gewirtz AH, Erbes CR, Polusny MA, Forgatch MS, DeGarmo DS. Helping military families through the deployment process: Strategies to support parenting. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice. 2011;42(1):56. [PMC free article: PMC3155511] [PubMed: 21841889]
• Gewirtz AH, McMorris BJ, Hanson S, Davis L. Family adjustment of deployed and nondeployed mothers in families with a parent deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice. 2014;45(6):465. [PMC free article: PMC4315359] [PubMed: 25663739]
• Gewirtz AH, Polusny MA, DeGarmo DS, Khaylis A, Erbes CR. Posttraumatic stress symptoms among National Guard soldiers deployed to Iraq: Associations with parenting behaviors and couple adjustment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2010;78(5):599. [PMC free article: PMC3073229] [PubMed: 20873896]
• Gewirtz AH, Youssef AM, editors. Parenting and Children's Resilience in Military Families. Switzerland: Springer; 2016.
• Gibbs DA, Martin SL, Kupper LL, Johnson RE. Child maltreatment in enlisted soldiers' families during combat-related deployments. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2007;298(5):528–535. [PubMed: 17666673]
• Gilreath TD, Wrabel SL, Sullivan KS, Capp GP, Roziner I, Benbenishty R, Astor RA. Suicidality among military-connected adolescents in California schools. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. 2016;25(1):61–66. [PubMed: 25791079]
• Goodman P, Turner A, Agazio J, Throop M, Padden D, Greiner S, Hillier SL. Deployment of military mothers: Supportive and nonsupportive military programs, processes, and policies. Military Medicine. 2013;178(7):729–734. [PubMed: 23820345]
• Guo C, Pollak J, Bauman M. Ten Frequently Asked Questions about Veterans' Transitions: Results of a Decade of RAND Work on Veteran Life. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation; 2016.
• Hatzenbuehler ML. How does sexual minority stigma “get under the skin”? A psychological mediation framework. Psychological Bulletin. 2009;135(5):707. [PMC free article: PMC2789474] [PubMed: 19702379]
• Hawkins SA, Condon A, Hawkins JN, Liu K, Melendrez Ramirez Y, Nihill MM, Tolins J. What We Know About Military Family Readiness: Evidence From 2007-2017. Monterey, CA: Research Facilitation Laboratory; 2018.
• Huebner AJ, Mancini JA, Bowen GL, Orthner DK. Shadowed by war: Building community capacity to support military families. Family Relations. 2009;58(2):216–228.
• Huffman AH, Dunbar N, Van Puyvelde V, Klinefelter ZP, Sullivan KS. Caring for children and meeting mission needs: Experiences of parents in dual-military families. Military Behavioral Health. 2017;6(3):186–197.
• Institute of Medicine. Returning Home from Iraq and Afghanistan: Assessment of Readjustment Needs of Veterans, Service Members, and Their Families. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2013. 10.17226/13499. [PubMed: 24901192]
• Joint Advertising, Market Research & Studies (JAMRS). The Target Population for Military Recruitment: Youth Eligible to Enlist Without a Waiver. Briefing for the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services. U.S. Department of Defense; 2016. Retrieved from https://dacowits​.defense​.gov/Portals/48/Documents​/General%20Documents​/RFI%20Docs​/Sept2016/JAMRS%20RFI%2014​.pdf?ver=2016-09-09-164855-510.
• Kamarck KN. Military Child Development Program: Background and Issues. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service; 2018.
• Kelley ML, Hock E, Smith KM, Jarvis MS, Bonney JF, Gaffney MA. Internalizing and externalizing behavior of children with enlisted Navy mothers experiencing military-induced separation. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. 2001;40(4):464–471. [PubMed: 11314573]
• Kelley ML, Hock E, Jarvis MS, Smith KM, Gaffney MA, Bonney JF. Psychological adjustment of Navy mothers experiencing deployment. Military Psychology. 2002;14(3):199–216.
• Kelty R, Kleykamp M, Segal D. The military and the transition to adulthood. The Future of Children. 2010;20(1):181–207. [PubMed: 20364627]
• Kelty R, Segal DR. The military as a transforming influence: Integration into or isolation from normal adult roles. In: Wilmoth JM, London AS, editors. Life Course Perspectives on Military Service. New York, NY: Routledge; 2013. pp. 19–47.
• Kimerling R, Street AE, Pavao J, Smith MW, Cronkite RC, Holmes TH, Frayne SM. Military-related sexual trauma among Veterans Health Administration patients returning from Afghanistan and Iraq. American Journal of Public Health. 2010;100(8):1409–1412. [PMC free article: PMC2901286] [PubMed: 20558808]
• Klein DA, Roberts TA, Adirim TA, Landis CA, Susi A, Schvey NA, HisleGorman E. Transgender children and adolescents receiving care in the U.S. military health care system. Journal of the American Medical Association Pediatrics. 2019;173(5):491–492. [PMC free article: PMC6503498] [PubMed: 30907932]
• Kleykamp M. Life Course Perspectives on Military Service. New York, NY: Routledge; 2013. Labor market outcomes among veterans and military spouses; pp. 168–188.
• Kleykamp M, Hipes C. Coverage of veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the U.S. media. Sociological Forum. 2015;30(2):348–368.
• Layne CM, Briggs EC, Courtois CA. Introduction to the special section: Using the trauma history profile to unpack risk factor caravans and their consequences. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy. 2014;6(1):S1–S8.
• Legate N, Ryan RM, Weinstein N. Is coming out always a “good thing”? Exploring the relations of autonomy support, outness, and wellness for lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals. Social Psychological and Personality Science. 2012;3(2):145–152.
• Lerner RM. Developmental science, developmental systems, and contemporary theories of human development. Damon W, Lerner R, editors. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc; Handbook of Child Psychology. (6th) 2007;1:1–17.
• Lester P, Peterson K, Reeves J, Knauss L, Glover D, Mogil C, Duan N, Saltzman W, Pynoos R, Wilt K, Beardslee W. The long war and parental combat deployment: Effects on military children and at-home spouses. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. 2010;49(4):310–320. [PMC free article: PMC2875082] [PubMed: 20410724]
• Lim N, Mariano LT, Cox AG, Schulker D, Hanser LM. Improving Demographic Diversity in the U.S. Air Force Officer Corps. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation; 2014.
• London AS, Heflin CM. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) use among active-duty, military personnel, veterans and reservists. Population Research and Policy Review. 2015;34(6):805–826.
• Loughran D, Klerman J. Explaining the Increase in Unemployment Compensation for Ex-Servicemembers during the Global War on Terror. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation; 2008.
• Lucier-Greer M, Arnold AL, Grimsley RN, Ford JL, Bryant C, Mancini JA. Parental military service and adolescent well-being: Mental health, social connections and coping among youth in the USA. Child & Family Social Work. 2016;21(4):421–432.
• Lucier-Greer M, O'Neal CW, Arnold AL, Mancini JA, Wickrama KK. Adolescent mental health and academic functioning: Empirical support for contrasting models of risk and vulnerability. Military Medicine. 2014;179(11):1279–1287. [PubMed: 25373055]
• Lutz AC. Race-ethnicity and immigration status in the U.S. military. In: Wilmoth JM, London AS, editors. Life Course Perspectives on Military Service. New York, NY: Routledge; 2013. pp. 68–96.
• Lyle DS. Using military deployments and job assignments to estimate the effect of parental absence and household relocations on children's academic achievement. Journal of Labor Economics. 2006;24(2):319–350.
• MacLean A. A matter of life and death: Military service and health. In: Wilmoth JM, London AS, editors. Life Course Perspectives on Military Service. New York, NY: Routledge; 2013. pp. 200–220.
• MacLean A, Edwards RD. The pervasive role of rank in the health of U.S. veterans. Armed Forces & Society. 2010;36(5):765–785. [PMC free article: PMC2992345] [PubMed: 21113413]
• MacLean A, Elder GH. Military service in the life course. Annual Review of Sociology. 2007;33:175–196.
• Maley AJ, Hawkins DN. The Southern military tradition: Sociodemographic factors, cultural legacy, and U.S. Army enlistments. Armed Forces & Society. 2018;44(2):195–218.
• Mansfield AJ, Kaufman JS, Engel CC, Gaynes BN. Deployment and mental health diagnoses among children of U.S. Army personnel. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine. 2011;165(11):999–1005. [PubMed: 21727258]
• Masten AS. Afterword: What we can learn from military children and families. The Future of Children. 2013;23(2):199–212. [PubMed: 25518699]
• Masten AS, Cicchetti D. Developmental cascades. Development and Psychopathology. 2010;22(3):491–495. [PubMed: 20576173]
• McCarroll JE, Fan Z, Newby JH, Ursano RJ. Trends in U.S. Army child maltreatment reports: 1990-2004. Child Abuse Review: Journal of the British Association for the Study and Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect. 2008;17(2):108–118.
• McGraw K. Gender differences among military combatants: Does social support, ostracism, and pain perception influence psychological health? Military Medicine. 2016;181(1):80–85. [PubMed: 26741905]
• Meadows S, Engel C, Collins R, Beckman R, Cefalu M, Hawes-Dawson J, Doyle M, Kress A, Sontag-Padilla L, Ramchand R, Williams K. 2015 Department of Defense Health Related Behaviors Survey (HRBS). Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation; 2018. [PMC free article: PMC6183770] [PubMed: 30323988]
• Meadows SO, Tanielian T, Karney BR, editors. The Deployment Life Study: Longitudinal Analysis of Military Families Across the Deployment Cycle. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation; 2016. [PMC free article: PMC5568161] [PubMed: 28845345]
• Mesecar D, Soifer D. Getting School Districts Ready for the Military Student Identifier. Arlington, VA: Lexington Institute; 2018. Retrieved from https:​//forstudentsuccess​.org/wp-content​/uploads/2018/09/MSI-Lex-Report_final​.pdf.
• Meyer IH. Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin. 2003;129(5):674. [PMC free article: PMC2072932] [PubMed: 12956539]
• Military Child Education Coalition (MCEC) for the United States Army Family and Morale, Welfare and Recreation Command. What Transitioning Military Families with Children Who Have Special Needs Currently Experience: Phase II Continuity of Care within the Exceptional Family Member Program. Harker Heights, Texas: 2009.
• Military Child Education Coalition (MCEC) for the United States Army Family and Morale, Welfare and Recreation Command. Deepening our understanding about military-connected students: A first look at one state's data. On the Move Magazine. 2017;11(1)
• Military Child Education Coalition (MCEC) for the United States Army Family and Morale, Welfare and Recreation Command. Making the Case: Recognizing and Supporting All Military-Connected Students in Our Nation's Schools. Harker Heights, Texas: 2019a.
• Military Child Education Coalition (MCEC) for the United States Army Family and Morale, Welfare and Recreation Command. Frequently Asked Questions and Suggested Use for Military Student Identifier Code. 2019b. Retrieved from https://www​.militarychild​.org/upload/files​/resources/FAQs_on​_Military_Connected_Stude​.2%20-%20Copy%201.pdf.
• Military Interstate Children's Compact Commission. Interstate Compact on Educational Opportunity for Military Children: Compact Rules. Lexington, KY: 2018. Retrieved from http://www​.mic3.net/assets​/rules-2018-revised-9-nov--2018​.pdf.
• Military Leadership Diversity Commission. From Representation to Inclusion: Diversity Leadership for the 21st Century Military. 2011. Retrieved from https://diversity​.defense​.gov/Portals/51​/Documents/Special%20Feature​/MLDC_Final_Report.pdf.
• Miller DP, Larson MJ, Byrne T, DeVoe E. Food insecurity in veteran households: Findings from nationally representative data. Public Health Nutrition. 2016;19(10):1731–1740. [PMC free article: PMC10271016] [PubMed: 26553172]
• Millegan J, Milburn EK, LeardMann CA, Street AE, Williams D, Trone DW, Crum-Cianflone NF. Recent sexual trauma and adverse health and occupational outcomes among U.S. service women. Journal of Traumatic Stress. 2015;28(4):298–306. [PubMed: 26201507]
• Milliken CS, Auchterlonie JL, Hoge CW. Longitudinal assessment of mental health problems among active and reserve component soldiers returning from the Iraq war. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2007;298(18):2141–2148. [PubMed: 18000197]
• Moeller JD, Culler ED, Hamilton MD, Aronson KR, Perkins DF. The effects of military-connected parental absence on the behavioral and academic functioning of children: A literature review. Journal of Children's Services. 2015;10(3):291–306.
• Mount SD, Steelman SM, Hertlein K. “I'm not sure I trust the system yet”: Lesbian service member experiences with mental health care. Military Psychology. 2015;27(2):115–127. Retrieved from https://www​.researchgate​.net/publication/277580651.
• Negrusa B, Negrusa S. Home front: Post deployment mental health and divorce. Demography. 2014;51(3):895–916. [PubMed: 24781649]
• Negrusa S, Negrusa B, Hosek J. Going to war: Have deployments increased divorce? Journal of Population Economics. 2013;27(2):473–496.
• North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Summary of the National Reports of NATO Member and Partner Nations to the NATO Committee on Gender Perspectives 2016. 2016. Retrieved from https://www​.nato.int​/nato_static_fl2014/assets​/pdf/pdf_2017_11​/20171122_2016_Summary_of_NRs_to_NCGP​.pdf.
• Office of Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity. Hazing Prevention and Response in the Armed Forces, Annual Summary Report to Congress, Reporting Period: April 26, 2016-September 30, 2017. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Defense; 2017.
• Office of Special Needs. Annual Report to the Congressional Defense Committees on the Activities of the Office of Special Needs-2017. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Defense; 2018.
• Padavic I, Prokos A. Aiming high: Explaining the earnings advantage for female veterans. Armed Forces & Society. 2017;43(2):368–386.
• Parco JE, Levy DA, editors. Attitudes Aren't Free: Thinking Deeply About Diversity in the US Armed Forces. Maxwell Air Force Base, AL: Air University Press; 2010.
• Parrott S, Albright DL, Dyche C, Steele HG. Hero, charity case, victim: How U.S. news media frame military veterans on Twitter. Armed Forces & Society. 2018;(1):21.
• Pew Research Center. Internet/Broadband Fact Sheet. 2018a. Retrieved from http://www​.pewinternet​.org/fact-sheet/internet-broadband.
• Pew Research Center. Social Media Fact Sheet. 2018b. Retrieved from http://www​.pewinternet​.org/fact-sheet/social-media.
• Pew Research Center. Mobile Fact Sheet. 2018c. Retrieved from http://www​.pewinternet​.org/fact-sheet/mobile.
• Polchar J, Sweijs T, Marten P, Gladega J. LGBT Military Personnel: A Strategic Vision for Inclusion. The Hague, Netherlands: The Hague Centre for Strategic Studies; 2014.
• Prokos A, Cabage LN. Women military veterans, disability, and employment. Armed Forces & Society. 2017;43(2):346–367.
• Ramirez H, Bloeser K. Risk and resilience: A review of the health literature of veterans who identify as LGBT. In: Ritchie E, Wise J, Pyle B, editors. Gay Mental Healthcare Providers and Patients in the Military. Springer, Cham.; 2018. pp. 9–24.
• Rentz ED, Marshall SW, Loomis D, Martin SL, Casteel C, Gibbs D. Effect of deployment on the occurrence of child maltreatment in military and non-military families. American Journal of Epidemiology. 2007;165(10):1199–1206. [PubMed: 17329716]
• Reyes-Guzman CM, Bray RM, Forman-Hoffman VL, Williams J. Overweight and obesity trends among active duty military personnel: A 13-year perspective. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2015;48(2):145–153. [PubMed: 25442226]
• Richardson A, Chandra A, Martin LT, Messan Setodji C, Hallmark BW, Campbell NF, Hawkins SA, Grady P. Effects of Soldiers' Deployment on Children's Academic Performance and Behavioral Health. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation; 2011.
• Rohall D, Ender MG, Matthews MD, editors. Inclusion in the American Military: A Force for Diversity. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books; 2017.
• Rosellini AJ, Street AE, Ursano RJ, Chiu WT, Heeringa SG, Monahan J, Naifeh JA, Petukhova MV, Reis BY, Sampson NA, Bliese PD. Sexual assault victimization and mental health treatment, suicide attempts, and career outcomes among women in the U.S. Army. American Journal of Public Health. 2017;107(5):732–739. [PMC free article: PMC5388957] [PubMed: 28323466]
• Rostker B, Hosek SD, Winkler JD, Asch BJ, Asch SM, Baxter C, Bensahel N, Berry SH, Brown RA, Werber L, Collins RL. Sexual Orientation and U.S. Military Personnel Policy: An Update of RAND's 1993 Study. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation; 2010.
• Ruff SB, Keim MA. Revolving doors: The impact of multiple school transitions on military children. Professional Counselor. 2014;4(2):103–113.
• Santos CE, Toomey RB. Integrating an intersectionality lens in theory and research in developmental science. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development. 2018;2018(161):7–15. [PubMed: 29969178]
• Schulte B, Durana A. The New America Care Report. Washington, DC: New America; 2016. Retrieved from https://www​.newamerica​.org/better-life-lab​/policy-papers/new-america-care-report/
• Segal MW. The military and the family as greedy institutions. Armed Forces & Society. 1986;13(1):9–38.
• Segal MW, Lane MD. Conceptual model of military women's life events and well-being. Military Medicine. 2016;181(suppl_1):12–19. [PubMed: 26741897]
• Segal MW, Lane MD, Fisher AG. Conceptual model of military career and family life course events, intersections, and effects on well-being. Military Behavioral Health. 2015;3(2):95–107.
• Shiffer CO, Maury RV, Sonethavilay H, Hurwitz JL, Lee HC, Linsner RK, Mehta MS. 2017 Blue Star Families Military Family Lifestyle Survey. Blue Star Families; 2017. Retrieved from https://www​.secome.org​/MFLS-ComprehensiveReport17-FINAL.pdf.
• Snyder J, Gewirtz AH, Schrepferman LP, Gird SR, Quattlebaum J, Pauldine MR, Elish K, Zamir O, Hayes C. Parent-child relationship quality and family transmission of parent posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms and child externalizing and internalizing symptoms following fathers' exposure to combat-related trauma. Development and Psychopathology. 2016;28:947–969. [PMC free article: PMC5113136] [PubMed: 27739388]
• Spencer E, Page K, Clark MG. Managing frequent relocation in families? Considering prospect theory, emotional framing, and priming. Family and Consumer Science Research Journal. 2016;45(1):77–90.
• Spiro A III, Settersten RA, Aldwin CM. Long-term outcomes of military service in aging and the life course: A positive re-envisioning. The Gerontologist. 2015;56(1):5–13. [PMC free article: PMC4906316] [PubMed: 26655859]
• Stock M. Essential to the Fight: Immigrants in the Military Eight Years after 9/11. Special Report. Washington, DC: Immigration Policy Center, American Immigration Council; 2009.
• Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Strategies to Improve Media Coverage of Military Veterans with Mental Health Issues: Report of the Dialogue Meeting July 2012. Rockville, MD: 2013. Retrieved from https://www​.samhsa.gov​/sites/default/files​/veterans-dialogue.pdf.
• Surís A, Link-Malcolm J, Chard K, Ahn C, North C. A randomized clinical trial of cognitive processing therapy for veterans with PTSD related to military sexual trauma. Journal of Traumatic Stress. 2013;26(1):28–37. [PubMed: 23325750]
• Task Force on Defense Personnel. Building a F.A.S.T. Force: A Flexible Personnel System for a Modern Military: Recommendations from the Task Force on Defense Personnel. Washington, DC: Bipartisan Policy Center; 2017.
• Tick S, Pema E, Mehay S, Salas M. An Analysis of the Career Progression of Hispanic Military Officers. Monterey, CA: Naval Postgraduate School; 2015.
• Tong PK, Payne LA, Bond CA, Meadows SO, Lewis JL, Friedman EM, Maksabedian Hernandez EJ. Enhancing Family Stability During a Permanent Change of Station: A Review of Disruptions and Policies. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation; 2018.
• Trail TE, Martin LT, Burgette LF, Warren May L, Mahmud A, Nanda N, Chandra A. An Evaluation of U.S. Military Non-Medical Counseling Programs. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation; 2017. [PMC free article: PMC6183774] [PubMed: 30323989]
• U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). Military Morale, Welfare, and Recreation (MWR) Programs. Washington, DC: 2009. (DoD Instruction 1015.10). Retrieved from http://www​.esd.whs.mil​/Portals/54/Documents​/DD/issuances/dodi/101510p.pdf.
• U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). DoD Housing Management. (DoD Manual 4165.63, Incorporating Change 2, August 31, 2018). Washington, DC: 2010. Retrieved from https://www​.esd.whs.mil​/Portals/54/Documents​/DD/issuances/dodm/416563m​.pdf?ver=2018-09-20-075812-223.
• U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). Memorandum for Secretaries of the Military Departments: Transgender Service Members. 2015. Retrieved from https://dod​.defense.gov​/Portals/1/features​/2016/0616_policy/memo-transgender-service-directive-28-July-2015.pdf.
• U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). Annual Report to the Congressional Defense Committees on the Department of Defense Policy and Plans for Military Family Readiness: Fiscal Year 2016. Washington, DC: 2016a. Retrieved from http://download​.militaryonesource​.mil/12038​/MOS/Reports/FY2016-Report-on-DoD-Policy-and-Plans-for-MFR.pdf.
• U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). Report to the Congressional Defense Committees on Wait Times at Department of Defense Child Development Centers. Washington, DC: 2016b.
• U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). Department of Defense Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military: Fiscal Year 2016. 2016c. Retrieved from https://sapr​.mil/public​/docs/reports/FY16_Annual​/FY16_SAPRO_Annual_Report.pdf.
• U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). The Third Quadrennial Quality of Life Review. Washington, DC: 2017a. (No 17-C-0436). Retrieved from http://download​.militaryonesource​.mil/12038​/MOS/Reports/QQLR2017.pdf.
• U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). Annual Report to the Congressional Defense Committees on the Department of Defense Policy and Plans for Military Family Readiness, Fiscal Year 2016. Washington, DC: 2017b.
• U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). 2017 Demographics: Profile of the Military Community. Washington, DC: 2017c. Retrieved from http://download​.militaryonesource​.mil/12038​/MOS/Reports/2017-demographics-report.pdf.
• U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). The Exceptional Family Member Program (EFMP). Washington, DC: 2017d. (DoD Instruction 1315.19). Retrieved from https://www​.esd.whs.mil​/Portals/54/Documents​/DD/issuances/dodi/131519p.pdf.
• U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). 2016 Demographics: Profile of the Military Community. 2018. Personal communication of 2017 service member and spouse survey statistics to supplement statistics reported in.
• U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). Military Service by Transgender Persons and Persons With Gender Dysphoria. 2019. (Directive-type memorandum (DTM) 19-004). Retrieved from https://www​.esd.whs.mil​/Portals/54/Documents​/DD/issuances/dtm/DTM-19-004​.pdf?ver​=2019-03-13-103259-670.
• U.S. Department of Defense Education Activity. About DoDEA - DoDEA Schools Worldwide. 2019. Retrieved from https://www​.dodea.edu/aboutDoDEA/today​.cfm.
• U.S. Department of Defense Education Activity. DoDEA Educational Partnership: About Educational Partnership. 2019a. Retrieved from https://www​.dodea.edu/Partnership/
• U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs. National Center for Veterans Analysis and Statistics: Veteran Population Infographic, Veteran Population Projections 2017-2037. 2018. Retrieved from https://www​.va.gov/vetdata​/docs/Demographics​/New_Vetpop_Model​/Vetpop_Infographic_Final31.pdf.
• U.S. Departments of the Army and the Air Force. National Guard Domestic Operations. National Guard Regulation 500-1/Air National Guard Instruction 10-8101. Arlington, VA: National Guard Bureau; 2008.
• U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). Military Child Care: DoD Is Taking Actions to Address Awareness and Availability Barriers. Washington, DC: 2012.
• U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). Complete Data on Active-Duty Servicemembers' Use of Food Assistance Programs. Washington, DC: 2016.
• U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). Military Personnel: Improvements Needed in the Management of Enlistees' Medical Early Separation and Enlistment Information. Washington, DC: 2017.
• U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). Military Readiness: Clear Policy and Reliable Data Would Help DoD Better Manage Service Members' Time Away from Home. Washington, DC: 2018a.
• U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). Military Personnel: DoD Should Improve Its Oversight of the Exceptional Family Member Program. Washington, DC: 2018b.
• U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). Military Personnel: DoD Needs to Improve Funding Process for Morale, Welfare, and Recreation Programs. Washington, DC: 2018c.
• U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). Transitioning Servicemembers: Information on Military Employment Assistance Centers. Washington, DC: 2019. (GAO-19-438R). Retrieved from https://www​.gao.gov/assets/700/699769​.pdf.
• Van Donge N, Schvey NA, Roberts TA, Klein DA. Transgender dependent adolescents in the U.S. military health care system: Demographics, treatments sought, and health care service utilization. Military Medicine. 2019;184(5-6):e447–e454. [PubMed: 30325452]
• Werber L, Schaefer AG, Osilla KC, Wilke E, Wong A, Breslau J, Kitchens KE. Support for the 21st-Century Reserve Force: Insights on Facilitating Successful Reintegration for Citizen Warriors and Their Families. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation; 2013.
• Williams KD. Ostracism. Annual Review of Psychology. 2007;58:425–452. [PubMed: 16968209]
• Wilmoth JM, London AS. Life Course Perspectives on Military Service. New York: Routledge; 2013.
• Wilmoth JM, London AS, Parker WM. Sex differences in the relationship between military service status and functional limitations and disabilities. Population Research and Policy Review. 2011;30:333–354.
• Zellman GL, Gates SM, Moini JS, Suttorp M. Meeting family and military needs through military child care. Armed Forces & Society. 2009;35:437–459.
• Zhao S, Chen X. Maternal involvement in children's leisure activities in rural China: Relations with adjustment outcomes. Journal of Family Psychology. 2018;32(1):71–80. [PubMed: 29543486]
• Zimmerman L, Darnell DA, Rhew IC, Lee CM, Kaysen D. Resilience in community: A social ecological development model for young adult sexual minority women. American Journal of Community Psychology. 2015;55(1-2):179–190. [PMC free article: PMC4381736] [PubMed: 25572956]
• Zinskie CD, Rea DW. The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA): What it means for educators of students at risk. National Youth-At-Risk Journal. 2016;2(1):1.