Encrypted Text Analysis: Possible Computer Science or Mathematics Document, Study notes of Statistics

Download Encrypted Text Analysis: Possible Computer Science or Mathematics Document and more Study notes Statistics in PDF only on Docsity! 7D-R17 789 DETERNINING THE IMPACT OF FRNILY PROORANS UPON RETENTION: NHY SUCCESSFUL OFFICERS STRY(U) RRNY MR COLL CRRLISLE RRRRCKS PR T P ROSS 12 NRY 86 UNCLRSSIFIED F/G 5/9 Ni lillElgElllllE IIIIIIIIIIIh~I EIIEIIIIEEEEI llhllllllllllu - Sao.Il~ ~~~W 10 Jl12.0. 1111 I III j 1.6MIII' MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS 1963A II '1~ .: " . S .''k' - ' rtt~( % UNCLAS TFTEQ SECURITY CL ASSIFICAION O1! THIS PAGECWb, Date Zntermd BLOJCK 20 (continued) Ai.%y careers, research of pertinent literature and sources, and ccnclusions and recarrrendations determined fran analysis of the data. While the study is limit- *.*.~. ed to consideration of issues involving conmissioned officers, conclusions may be valuable in planning for retention of successful soldiers of all ranks, and for the consideration of Army families. The study represents a preliminary examination of a well defined officer population. The methodolog~y is relevant to other military populations, at various points in their careers, who should be examined further. * % i: ; UNCLA&SIFIE SECUITY LASIFICTIO OF MIS AGEWhenDat Entred The views expressed in this paper e of the author and do not necessA'y rfelect the views ot the Oepartinefnt o Detense or any of its a0ef t ics Ihi, document mav not be released ota open piubliCatinn intil it has been cleared by tol pen ublcat ontAccession For.the appruprate military service of Rover"nmO AI- , onA a~efcV, N'TIS C &I - DTP TAB Unannounced J u s t ti fi c t i C a USAWC MILITARY STUDIES PROGRAM PAPER Distribut ion/ AvallabIltv Codes S NDist 'Avnil 1)(2/orDlsc special DETERMINING THE IMPACT OF FAMILY PROGRAMS UPON RETENTION WHY SUCCESSFUL OFFICERS STAY AN INDIVIDUAL STUDY PROJECT by Lieutenant Colonel Thomas P. Ross, FA Lieutenant Colonel James F. Schoonover Project Adviser DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A: Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. US Army War College Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania 17013 12 May 1986 - -- - - - ,- ABSTRACT AUTHOR: Thomas P. Ross, LTC, FA TITLE: Determining the Impact of Family Programs upon Retention -Why Successful Officers Stay FORMAT: Individual Study Project DATE: 12 May 1986 PAGES: 241 w/tables CLASSIFICATION: Unclassified ) The study identifies family related and other factors that are key to retention of successful US Army Officers. The study identifies twelve factors, some family-related, which influence successful commissioned officers to stay in the Army. To the extent that these factors have been identified, they could prove useful for inclusion within, or as reinforcement of, Army Retention and Family Programs. The study provides data gained by survey of commissioned officers who have reached an accepted level of "success" in their Army careers, research of pertinent literature and sources, and conclusions and recommendations determined from analysis of the data. While the study is limited to consideration of issues involving commissioned officers, conclusions may be valuable in planning for retention of successful soldiers of all ranks, and for the consideration of Army families. The study represents a preliminary examination of a well defined officer population. The methodology is relevant to other military populations, at various points in their careers, who should be examined further. ii LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1 The New Variables . .. .. .. .. ... .. .... 40 Table 2-2 Chi-Square Significance Coefficients .. ........ 43 Table 2-3 One-Way Analysis of Variance. ............. 47 Table 3-1 Performance of Specific Hypotheses. .......... 55 .......--.-.* *.*V CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Background In the past most of our plans, programs, and policies focused on basic needs or on correcting dysfunctions. Our concentration now and In the future is to capitalize on what is working well, by drawing on the characteristics of our many healthy families and transmitting these characteristics to those needing assistance. 1 During the dozen years following the creation of the "All Volunteer Army", extensive research has been conducted to identify family-related and other factors which cause personnel to become disenchanted with and/or leave military service. The identification of these "irritants", and programs to eliminate them has unquestionably added to improvement in Quality of Life for soldiers and their families. A review of the survey instruments used by the Department of the Army leaves one with the distinct feeling that a great deal has been done to find out why the disenchanted left the Army, but that little research has been conducted to identify the family-related, and other, factors which influenced personnel to remain in the Army. To the extent that some of the disenchanted and those that stayed might have been successful soldiers, it is important that the Army identify Just what factors might have caused them to stay, or are causing them to stay. Stated differently, to ensure that our Army is successful In retaining the "cream of the crop", 1 these critical family-related and other factors should be identified, and where applicable, capitalized upon. An attempt to examine the issue of why successful soldiers stay is appropriate for a variety of reasons. It is wholly correct to catalog the "wrongs" of our Army which have influenced both desirable and undesirable performers to leave the service. It is also important that we understand some of the reasons that may have been positive retention factors for successful military people. It is possible that some programs are over-stated, and either not attractive to successful soldiers, ineffective retainer tools of successful soldiers, or both. And, there may be other reasons for retention forthcoming as well. Stated figuratively, it is important that we seek to determine why the Jar is half full, rather than why it is half empty. In as much as the family is an integral part of the Total Army, the results of such a study will have intrinsic value to military retention, readiness, and wellness. The study supports the Army Family Action Plan II specific research goal and, most importantly, "Objective Two": Describe relationships between retention and family factors: The relationship between families and retention is uncertain. Because of the number of married soldiers has increased in recent years, it appears that family satisfaction affects the soldier's decision to stay in the Active Army, Army National Guard, and U.S. Army Reserve. Questions to be answered include the following: (a) Where are the Army's greatest retention problems? Where will they be in 1990? (b) Why do soldiers and families say they would leave the Army? When and how is that decision made? (c) What are the characteristics of soldiers and families that leave? Those that stay? (d) What are family procedures and policies which are * 2 V....................................... locations. Investigative Methodology Ideally, to completely test the hypotheses, the study should survey both enlisted and officer soldiers who had reached a similar accepted level of "success" in their careers. Likewise the spouses of these soldiers should be surveyed to determine their attitudes and contribution to the retention process. Such a methodology would involve three separate, but related, surveys conducted on a national basis. The first order of business was to limit the scope of the study to a manageable level, with a valid framework left for a follow-on study by others to obtain a picture of the complete population: officer, enlisted, spouse. (This framework is discussed in the Conclusions and Recommendations chapter of the study). To obtain a "successful" population capable of being surveyed within the time allotted for the study became the second task. Several conventions were used to arrive at the survey population. First, the scope of the survey was limited to commissioned officers. Next, "success" was determined to be the arrival of a commissioned officer at an external selection point in his or her career - selection for attendance at a Senior Service College. The target population chosen was the Active Army Officers of the U.S. Army War College Class of 1986. Officers from sister services, Reservists and National Guardsmen on active duty, were not be surveyed. The target population is unique in that it represents a "successful" group which has made a positive career commitment to stay in the Army. Their level of success can best be understood by the repeated external selections which they have sustained, • 5 - ,.. , 0 .. " . , . . -.-.. , . , ." ., . - ' ,' . -. ,..,. ' .'.,. , - -% . , , (selection to: Lieutenant Colonel; Battalion Command In most cases; Colonel In some cases; and the US Army War College), marks the population at close to the top of an ever decreasing pyramid - roughly the top 5% of the U.S. Army Commissioned Officer Corps. The survey Instrument, composed of 52 questions, was designed to be entirely objective to aid in ease of administration, acceptance by the population, and statistical analysis. Questions were chosen that described the population (11); gauged their agreement-disagreement-with- midpoint on statements related to family programs and Army life (13); and which described the strength of incentive-disincentive-wLth-mLdpoint to stay In the Army that certain family-related and other subject areas posed (28). Survey respondents were asked to place their responses on mark-sense forms, and space was provided for spontaneous written comments, but not to any specific questions. 174 commissioned officers comprised the population. 173 surveys were sent out, (the author was not surveyed), and 145 were returned completed. Two of the completed surveys were unfortunately returned two weeks after the "deadline" and were not included in the automated statistical analysis. However, the responses of these two late arrivals generally fell within the mode of the rest. Thus the considered return rate was 82.7%, (143 of 173). Subjective comments, found In Appendix 2, filled nearly 3 typewritten pages. Statistical manipulation and analysis were performed using the Statistical Program for the Social Sciences-X, (SPSS-x), on the Honeywell DPS 8/7 mainframe computer, and SPSS/PC+ on an IBM-PC. First, frequency responses were determined, and the 41 independent variables were cross- tabbed by the demographic questions. Second, a factor analysis was 6 conducted to Identify factors, (new variables), affecting retention which could explain the data. Three extractions were used, (principal axis factoring, principal components analysis, and unweighted least squares), and Varimax rotation for each extraction. Third, the newly identified variables, (12 in this case) were cross-tabulated with the demographic data. Fourth, a condescriptive procedure was run to compute univariate summary statistics and standardized variables for the original 52 questions, (variables), and the 12 new variables, (factors affecting retention). Finally, a one-way analysis of variance, (ANOVA), was conducted between the new variables and the demographic data. Assumptions The following two assumptions apply to the study. First, the target population represents U.S. Army commissioned officers with similar "successful" credentials; it does not represent all commissioned officers. Second, the personnel that responded to the survey questionnaire, (143), are representative of the entire population, (174), of the U.S. Army War College Class of 1986. Purpose It is the purpose of this study, and the survey that was developed to support it, to identify family-related and other factors that are key to the retention of successful U. S. Army Officers. It is postulated that certain uncataloged family-related and other factors can be very instrumental in the retention of successful commissioned officers. To the extent that these factors can be identified, they may prove beneficial for inclusion within, or as reinforcement of, existing Army 7 out, the feeling of the population toward the Army in most all categories was extremely positive. The survey was taken shortly before many of the probable implications of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings deficit reduction legislation on the Army were announced, and which were subsequently widely discussed and debated by members of the class. It would be interesting to see if attitudes on retention would remain the same should the same survey be administered again today. But the uncertainty created by the far-reaching implications of the legislation is probably, in of itself, a transitory thing. Only time will tell, and should some of the proposals come to pass, a whole new set of attitudes will be created and acted upon by this population. NOTE: The analysis and discussion which follows is based upon close examination of hundreds of pages of printouts provided by various SPSS routines. Appendix 3 contains the printouts from which the discussion emanates roughly the same order that it is discussed. Discussion of Response Freauencles The survey population is in many ways unique, but for a study of family-related issues it presents another "uniqueness" among most other populations -- it appears to be an extremely family oriented group. Fully 97.2% of the group has at one time been married, while 81.8% are still married for the first time. Only 14% had experienced divorce, and all but one individual in this category had remarried. The surveyed population has 318 dependents, or about 2.2 each, excluding a spouse. 18.3% of the population was raised in a military home, i.e., one of their parents was a service member during their formative years. In an era, and especially In a type occupation where the importance of spousal 10 careers can often cause families to be separated for the advancement of each of the partners' careers, this group seems typical. 7.2% left a spouse somewhere else to attend this military school. These families seem to like the Army and its lifestyle, with 68.5% In agreement, and only 18.2 somewhat undecided about the issue. 11.2% stated that their families did not like the Army. It is little wonder then that this population should relate to the military family question. Just how much family-related issues played in their career decision process remains to be examined. General Retention Factors The broad subject of retention necessarily begs the questions: "why do people want to become soldiers; and once having made the choice, why do they wish to remain soldiers?" The study reveals that the majority of successful officers, (57.4%), never planned to become soldiers in their early career formulation days, while only 29.4% had military career intentions all along; and the remainder, (13.3%), were not really certain what their military career plans were when they first Joined the Army. Once that career decision had been made, however, 79.7% stated that they remain committed to the Army life style and way of life. Strong incentives to their decisions to stay in included: the opportunity to serve with soldiers, (93.0%); a feeling of patriotism, (91.6%); the opportunity to command, (90.2%), and uniqueness of the military as a profession, (88.8%). Job Satisfaction At this point in their careers, this appears to be a happy, well satisfied group. 60.9% have served for 20 years or more. 98.6% state 11 that they enjoy their military career, the majority of them very strongly so. An even higher number, 99.4% believe that they are doing something useful by being in the military. The survey gave them an opportunity to describe Job satisfaction in different ways: as an incentive to stay in, 97.9% agreed that the importance of what they perceived they were doing as being significant to the decision; and an equal 97.9% felt that plain old satisfaction with their job provided incentive enough to make the Army a career. While the group has been steadily "whittled" away by attrition and the selection process over their 20-plus years to a point where a member of it represents the top five per-cent of the pyramid of their peers, it is safe to state that few professions have such a satisfied middle management echelon. This contrasts sharply with a study of comparable Air War College students by Anderson in 1980. Nearly 75% found their profession to be totally 1 unappealing. Career Intentions These feelings of satisfaction among a successful, productive group of professional soldiers have some long term benefits for the Army. The largest sub-group of the study, (61). has served for an average of 20.5 years. An almost equal number, (68, nearly 50%), plans to stay in the Army for 30 or more years. (Anderson reports that less than 22% of Air 2 Force officers have similar intentions.) Another block of 46 plans to remain for 26-29 years. (The 26 year point provides the last automatic pay raise for years of service at the grade of Colonel, and provides a natural decision station.) So it is safe to presume that more than half of the group will serve the Army for another 5.5 years, with at least 40% serving a minimum of 10 years longer. (The Cross-tabulation section will 12 reflexive one. The group believes in its own ability to solve family- related issues, and suggests some suspicion in the effectiveness of the Department of the Army in providing for these programs. 65.3% felt that family programs which emanate from unit level, (maneuver division and below), were both more effective and meaningful to soldiers than those which emanate from higher levels. Only 11.9% sided with headquarters far removed from the "trenches" in developing effective family-related programs. Examined from a slightly different perspective, 54.5% felt that a functioning unit-level family support system paid more dividends to Army families than more costly initiatives that require Army funding. However, 18.2% were more comfortable with the effectiveness of more costly Department of the Army family program initiatives. Anderson found 4 that USAF officer opt for DAF solutions by a margin of 5:1. Retirement When programs and services were considered by the group for the strength as incentives to stay In, none showed as strongly as the military retirement system. As discussed above 90.9% felt that it was a strong incentive. This program received the strongest endorsement of all programs and services discussed in the survey. That should not be a startling statistic from this group, as practically 100% will benefit from it, and they might be influenced by their relative closeness, (less than 10 years in most cases), to receiving it. This, despite all the I, worrisome discussion of changes to the retirement system that may prove 4. to be disincentives to future generations. The next strongest program as a retention incentive were opportunities for promotion in the Army. 79.9% were attracted by this program as a strong incentive to stay. 15 . . . . . . .. . . Travel While not specifically a program or service, the opportunity for the family to travel and live in foreign countries is thought of by most in the group as being an attractive idea for themselves and their families. Living in foreign lands was an attractive retention incentive for 76.2%, while family travel opportunities provided strong incentive for 67.8% to stay in. However 18.9% were not attracted by foreign living, and 24.5% did not feel that traveling, (perhaps to include frequent permanent change of station moves), provided much of an incentive. Medical, PX and Commissary In the strict sense of family-related programs, benefits and services, only three provided relatively strong incentives for retention for more than 50% of the survey population. The adequacy of family medical and dental care was attractive to 59.4%, but 33.6% did not feel the system provided an incentive. Commissary services and the Post Exchange System were strong incentives to 59.8% and 52.4% respectively, while more than 26% in each instance were of the opposite view point. Each of these programs are affected by the combined forces of criticism by legislative lobbyists, Congress, budgetary decisions which limit the scope of service, and off-post competition which, in many cases, provides more variety at a reasonable prices. Physical Family Separation The subject areas most "devastating" to a family's incentive to remain on active duty involve physical separation of the officer from his family. Two questions attempted to measure these areas by strength of an incentive to stay in. 78.4% indicated that time away from their family 16 . "- "" " 4", .'..'°***. ", . *", ." "." * .' o' .**~** ". p **' " .*.. '-. " *d*' ".b ..-- *.- ° . ---. ", .-. ,,- . ~ ", ' .' .- .*' . p- ' ' "' * " ' ", *. , ,:-.": , ', '. " • ' -- ." '- did not provide an incentive to stay in. Oddly 2.8% stated that time away from the family did provide an incentive for retention. (Cross-tabs discussed at length later, reveals that the four individuals who make up this sub-group are married for the first time. One can only speculate that they either need some "space" from time to time, or that they are headed for another marital category!) Unaccompanied tours provided a disincentive for retention to 82.5% of the group. (This time, 3 individuals, all married for the first time feel that unaccompanied tours are strong incentives for staying in.) The subject of family separation as a disincentive for officer retention has considerable support in surveys conducted over the last 15 years. Two DA surveys, conducted in 1969 and 1971, show that 70.2% and 70.9% respectively of those surveyed considered family separation an 5 influence to leave the Army. Foley's survey of the Command and General Staff College Class of 1976, found that family separation was an 6. influence to leave the service for 79.3%. Anderson found that family separation was the second most negative retention factor for successful 7 USAF officers. One program, on-post physical readiness centers and gymnasiums, received "mixed reviews". 39.9% regarded them as strong Incentives, and 37.1% felt they were not strong incentives. This is a surprising result considering the Army's emphasis upon physical readiness and the zeal with which these facilities have been built during the last five years. Negative Factors for Families From this point onward in the survey results, nine strictly family- related programs were addressed in the strongest terms as not providing 17 with 17 years or less AFCS are most prone to view job importance as an incentive to stay, as do those who plan to stay In the Army 30 years or more. Those who feel destined to reach General Officer rank look strongly at Job importance as important to retention, but their attitude is not so markedly different as in the other areas detailed above. Question 50, (job satisfaction as an incentive to stay in), when cross-tabbed by the same five demographic questions, provided results that were interesting because of their lack of differentiation. It was the only question of this group that contained respondents, (3), who stated that Job satisfaction was not an incentive to stay in. However, the importance of the question lies In the fact that Job satisfaction is important to retention no matter how one slices it by demography, (true in at least 97.8% of cases). Other Than Family-Related Factors Other non-family-related variables that measured to be strong retention issues included: the opportunity to serve with soldiers, (question 46); a feeling of patriotism for country, (33); and the opportunity to command, (40). Each was examined against the same five demographic variables. Again response frequencies were quite high, and ranged from 90.2% to 93.0%. Feelings of Patriotism Colonels expressed stronger opinions than LTC's that feelings of patriotism were Important incentives to them, 54.2% to 40.2% In fact 8.6% of the LTC's were either not certain about their attitudes toward patriotism and retention, or not motivated by it. Those coming from military families had only a 5.7% edge over those who were not "Army 21 brats", probably not significant; but Interestingly 11 individuals who were not from military backgrounds, (9.5%), were not motivated by patriotic feelings. AFCS did not have any measurable effect upon patriotic motivation toward staying In. The sub-group which planned to stay in the Army 24-25 years had a less strong tendency toward patriotism as motivation for staying in than did other sub-groups. Only those who aspired to the rank of Colonel showed a dip in the patriotism factor, 89.7% compared to near 100% for others. Opportunity for Command Only about 25% of all LTC's and much less than one-half that many COL's are ever selected to command units in the Army. Command is regarded to be the single most Important road to and measure of success, even though the dual tracked Officer Personnel Management System attempts to slightly soften its importance. Command is Important because it is made possible for LTC's and COL's only by external board selection, and it is almost always a prerequisite for other selections. (Only 2 Colonels, on a recent Brigadier General promotion list, who had not commanded at that level were selected for promotion.) So, attitudes about command opportunities among this group, particularly as they affect retention should be of Interest. Rank Rank causes a slight split in attitude about the incentive that command opportunity provides. 91.5% of LTC's were still motivated by it, but only 84% of COL's were, reflecting, perhaps, an opportunity diminished by the smaller number of Colonel-level commands. No appreciable difference Is noted for officers who came from military .5 22 i. . . ... . ... families, when compared to those who did not. Length of ACS, years planned to stay in, or highest expected rank appear not to stratify this variable. Thus, by all measures, command opportunity remains to be an important retention incentive to successful commissioned officers. Serving with Soldiers The opportunity to serve with soldiers Is what the business of being in the Army is all about. Little should come ahead of the professional officer's devotion to them and their welfare. Rank does not appear to greatly differentiate an officer's perception of serving with soldiers as an incentive to stay in. The same appears to be true for respondents with respect to military family background. The sub-group with 17 years or less of AFCS showed the lowest preference among the rest, 84.6% to greater than 91.7%. Years planned to remain on active duty did not stratify the results appreciably. There appears to be a slight lessening of serving with soldiers as a retention incentive for those aspiring to all categories of General Officer rank, (87.5%), when compared to those aspiring to become a Colonel, (94.3%). This probably reflects the fact that as one rises in rank his opportunity for association with Junior soldiers is lessened. Level of Family-Related Program Question 13, 19 and 30 deal with various attitudes on the level from which Army family programs emanate in general, and the effectiveness of unit sponsored programs in particular. In general a majority of the population demonstrated a preference for the effectiveness of small unit programs. Colonels showed greater faith in programs which sprung from division level and below than did LTC1S, (76% to 63.2%), with more than 23 mobility; and social services. Family-Related Economic Factors Considered here are the adequacy of the pay and allowance system; the adequacy of the retirement system; and the opportunity for promotion; all from the standpoint of their strength of incentive to stay in the Army. Pay and Allowances COL's and LTC's are of nearly equal opinion on the value of the pay and allowance system as an incentive, varying from a 56% to 60.7% rate. Similar agreement was found among families from military and non- military backgrounds. A relationship exists between years AFCS and beliefs about the adequacy of the pay and allowance system. 42.2% of those with 17 years or less viewed pay as an incentive, while among those with 22 years and over, 73.1% viewed the system as an incentive. This probably reflects the younger officer's deeper familiarity with pay scales in civilian industry and perhaps because this sub-group, (17 years or less AFCS), is composed largely of "fast-burners", they realize their true market worth. Those who plan to leave the Army soon, i.e., between 22-25 years service, seem to be making that choice on economic grounds. (This seems to conform nicely to the model for satisfaction of basic needs prior to those of a higher order.) 51.9% of these people do not see the pay system as an incentive to stay. The attitude shifts dramatically at the 26 year retention point to where 67.5% see pay as an Incentive. Those who aspire to make Colonel rank seem "to be in it for the money", as 64.2% are attracted by the pay 26 L*.21. _-i. incentivel of the 31 who expect to be promoted to BG, MG or LTG, only 45.2% see an economic incentive with an equal number seeing no monetary Incentive at all. Again this group is realistic viewing issues of comparable compensation for level of responsibility, and the mandated "Opay cap" that has, by that time, limited practically all but the most junior General Officers to $68688 annual salary. The Retirement System The popularity of the retirement system is hard to challenge. This population views it as a very real incentive by a margin of 90.9% to 5.6%. Rank and military family background appear to have little to do with this opinion. The sub-group with 17 years or less AFCS had 100% agreement in the system's adequacy as an incentive, while those between 18-19 years registered only 81.4%. There seems to be, with the exception of the 18-19 year sub-group, an inverse relationship, however slight, between years AFCS and view of the retirement system's adequacy as an incentive to stay in the Army. Based upon the view toward the pay system, one would expect the opposite result to be the case. With respect to the number of years one plans to stay in the service, there is a different relationship -- one that is expected. Those wishing to leave as early as possible, view the retirement system incentive in a more negative light than do those who wish to stay for 30 year or more, (74.1% to 97.1%). Those aspiring to become MG through GEN quite rightly see the incentive that the retirement system gives them in particular. Even though their pay is "capped" while on active duty, they still accrue raises at the 75% retirement pay rate after 30 years. So, it is not surprising that 96.9% of them see the system as an Incentive, while a smaller number of Colonels so view it. 27 The Promotion system Within the 30 years or more that this population expects to serve the vast majority will receive only five promotions, (from 2LT to 1LT, CPT, MAJ, LTC, and COL). A very select few will get as many as four more. So promotion, its possibilities, and all of its promise, is as close to an ultimate event as the military services have. While support for the system is large in this group, (79.9% view it as an incentive to stay), one could expect a successful group, such as this, that has passed through the winnowing process relatively unscathed to show even more enthusiasm for the promotion system. COL's viewed it as less of an incentive than did LTC's, (70.8% to 81.8%), reflecting their diminished chances of receiving further promotion. Military family background made little difference in one's opinion. With respect to years AFCS no trends were apparent, with the 18-19 year group, (68.3%), sticking out again. These officers are in or approaching their first time eligibility for selection "below the zone" to Colonel. The Army has been reluctant in past years to select from below the zone, and their apprehension at the chance for selection is probably reflected here. An interesting break occurs in thinking about promotion opportunity as an incentive when contrasted by years one plans to stay in the Army. The break point is again at 26 years. For those desiring to retire as soon as possible, (22-25 years), only 55.6% evoke the promotion incentive, while 90.8% of those who plan to stay for 30 years or more are lured by the prospect of promotion. As would be expected nearly ninety per cent of those who expect to achieve General Officer rank are attracted by the promotion system, nearly 12% higher than for those expecting to reach Colonel. 28 i 0 * . . . * - - * * * more prone to see the PX as an incentive, (53.9%). Again, as the number of years AFCS increase so does acceptance of the PX system as an incentive, with the exception of the 18-19 year sub-group, (only 35.6%). Planning to retire before the 26 year point shades one's view of the incentive of the PX system to remain on active duty. Little more than 41% are attracted by it. Of the 17 officers who expect to be promoted to Major General only 6, (35.3%). are attracted by the prospects of PX shopping. COL and BG aspirants will remain the best customers, (54.2% and 63.6% respectively). Family-Related Mobility Factors It Is not uncommon for an officer and his family, who have served for twenty years or more, to have moved 15 times of more. Each move was done at considerable expense to the family: monetary; to "roots" that never seem to get established; to the childrens' friendships; and often to the marriage itself. Some of the moves have created geographical bachelors out of both spouses. Sometimes, duty within one of the moves caused family strain. Four areas were examined for their value as an incentive: the opportunity for the family to travel; the experience of living in foreign lands; long periods in the field away from the family; and peacetime unaccompanied tours. While these have been discussed to some degree beginning on page 12, a closer examination of the component parts will prove useful. Travel Opportuncites COWs and LTC's are of nearly equal mind about the opportunity for their families to travel as an incentive, (67.8% - 68.0%), as are military families and non-military families. Those in the 22-23 years 31 - * . . -. -. ..-..... -~~ .-- 1-4 o i AFCs sub-group report the lowest acceptance of family travel as an incentive, (54.2%), probably because of the disadvantage it poses for their high school age children. The family travel incentive is fairly evenly viewed regardless how long one desires to remain on active duty. Those who aspire to become Brigadiers see the family travel incentive in the strongest light, (90.0%), followed by MG's at 68.5% (Realistically these officers will have, by that time, a family consisting largely of only a spouse; perhaps they look forward to being able to travel exclusively with him or her.) Foreign Living The incentive of experiences living In foreign lands is a fairly popular one for this population, (76.2%). COL's are much more agreeable to the idea, (92.0%), than are LTC's, (72.9%). Military and non-military backgrounded families view the positive incentive aspects equally, (76%), but respondents from families without military beginnings are twice as likely to see foreign living as a negative incentive. For significantly- sized sub-groups, the incentive for foreign living decreases as years of AFCS increase, to the point where only 54.2% of the 22-23 year sub-group sees It as an incentive, again probably reflecting concern over moving high school age children. There appears to be a steadily increasing view of foreign living as an incentive the longer otse plans to remain on active duty, up to the over 30 year point. It then drops from 84.6% for the 30 year group, to 66.8% Those destined to become General Officers appear slightly more inclined to welcome service overseas than do Colonel aspirants, (75.0% - 66.3%). 32 Famlly Separation While the previously discussed mobility factors had high incentive value, those involving family separation, in its various forms, had quite the opposite worth. 78.4% view long periods away from the family, such as field duty and TDY, to have negative incentive value. Rank made no difference in viewpoint. Officers from military family backgrounds were less likely to accept view family separation as a negative factor, (61.5%), compared to those with non-military family influences, (82.1%); but, the military background sub-group had a huge "undecided-not sure" attitude, perhaps reflecting the uncertainty of a missing parent during their own childhood. Those with 17 years of less AFCS, and those with 20-21 years felt strongest about time away from the family, (84.6% - 86.9%). The time one plans to remain on active duty, and the rank one expects to achieve before leaving, does not appear to differentiate the negative perception of this issue to any degree. Peacetime Unaccompanied Tours Peacetime unaccompanied tours are the least popular of all among family mobility factors, with 81.5% viewing them as negative incentives. Colonels seem to have somewhat less of a problem with this issue, (72.0%), than do LTC's, (84.7%). Those from military family beginnings again have a less strong negative feeling about unaccompanied tours, (65.4%), and retain a 3:1 undecided emotion about the Issue, when compared to the other group. The sub-group with 20-21 years expressed the strongest negative feelings about unaccompanied tours, (91.8%), probably because most have been in long enough to have served 2 or 3 already, and will stay long enough to get yet another one. This seems to be borne out by examining how long one plans to stay in the Army. The 33 incentive than do their counter parts by 12 per-centage points but, as in many issues discussed here, many remain highly undecided. As might be presumed, officers with the least number of years AFCS find higher incentive value in day care, (23.1%), than any other sub-group, and smallest rate of viewing the issue negatively, (53.9%). Relationships concerning the subject and years remaining on active duty are not readily apparent. 15.6% of those who believe they will become General Officers see day care as an attraction, twice the rate of those who view the rank of Colonel as their limit of advance. Army Community Services The Army Community Service, (ACS), was formed over 15 years ago primarily to assist Army families in need, under a variety of circumstances. Since then it has transformed from an all-volunteer "lending closet" to a funded agency that has a significant proportion of paid "professional" staff. Some old time volunteers resent that transformation because they prefer the volunteer nature of such *' organizations and continue doing so for no reason but the duty and good feeling of it all, and because of an incursion of what appear to be very inefficient, unempathetic "social welfare types". Rank appears to make little difference in explaining why ACS is held in such low esteem as an incentive for retention. Former relationships shown for officers from military and non-military family backgrounds continue for this issue: higher rejection by those of non-military family background; and more uncertainty on the question by those with military family beginnings. Similarly, those with 17 years AFCS or less are the strongest believers that ACS provides and incentive to stay, (15.4%). 36 Neither years of planned service, nor the rank to which one aspires appear to affect ones opinion of ACS as an incentive. Chaplain Services The services provided by the Chaplaincy range from chapel services with all the Sacraments of the three major religions, good works in the community at large, staff guidance and counsel to units, to spiritual comfort on the battlefield. While the first two services are not unique to the military, the last two are wholly so. Both ranks view the positive aspects of the Chaplaincy's works similarly, but, LTC's were more prone to take a negative view. Officers with military family backgrounds were more inclined to view the Chaplaincy as a positive incentive, (32%), but still retaining a large undecided position, (40%). Those with 18-19 years AFCS were more inclined to see the Chaplain's works as an incentive to stay in, (33.3%). Interestingly, those planning to retire as soon as possible, (22-25 years) have the highest opinion of Chaplaincy services as an incentive, (44.4%). Those who expect to become 9's before they retire have the highest view of the subject as an incentive, (45.5%). Factor AnalYsis - Identifying New VariabLes The discussion in the previous section was centered on trying to describe family-related and other factors with observable or logical interrelationships. That was done with little more regard for statistical relationship than that which one could *eyeball". That makes for a good starting point, and perhaps some lively cocktail party discussion, but often it is questionable science. SPSS provides such a 37 statistical technique to assist in finding factors, (new variables), which can explain the data in an interrelated way - factor analysis. *Factor analysis is a statistical technique used to identify a relatively small number of factors that can be used to represent relationships among sets of many interrelated variables. The basic assumption of factor analysis is that underlying dimensions, or factors, can be used to explain complex phenomena. Observed correlations between variables 8 result from their sharing these factors." The Procedure SPSS takes the data through a four-step process which will be discussed in summary form here. Selected statistical printouts can be found in Appendix 3-4-1. The program initially computed a correlation matrix for all 52 variables to identify variables that do not appear to *. be related to each other, and gain some insight from the statistics provided about the appropriateness of using the factor analysis model. The program provides several aides to evaluate the value of the data. Bartlett's test of sphericity value was 2615.3877, with an associated significance level of .00000. The literature recommends to accept that the population of the correlation matrix is an identity when the test 9 value is quite large and the level of significance quite small. Thus, based upon this test, the data and use of the factor model has merit. Another test of the data is the partial correlation coefficient, determined by comparing the proportion of relatively small coefficients from the matrix of anti-image correlations. Ideally there will be a higher proportion of small coefficients. Since no numerical guidance was provided, coefficients above .75 were considered to be large. Only 26.8% fell into this criterion, lending confidence to the data. Finally, the * 38 4 4, 44 4 % * . 4 .. . -. (Continued) rn VARIABLE FACTOR QL& VAUALINCLUDE QUESTION L Perceptions of the 12 Two Coefficients <-0.5 Army Importance of Family 13 Family Programs Important 15 Programs to Soldiers Table 2-1 New Variables The model holds that Factor 1, (Social Services), explains a higher proportion of the total variance than does Factor 13, (Importance of Family Programs to Soldiers). (See Appendix 3 for details). SPSS computes both "initial" and "final" statistics, the latter of which produces the maximum likelihood solution. Simply stated, if Eigenvalues of 1.0 or greater are accepted as the decision point to consider the relevance of a factor then, In the maximum likelihood solution, only 8 factors are available to explain or represent 49.7% of the data. The data provided by the factor analysis technique are significant to the study. The new variable, social Services, is the most important factor represented by the study In explaining the results. Recall from previous discussion, that reaction to these services by this successful group of officers as retention incentives was wholly negative, or at least not important to the decision process for retention. Factor 2, Job Satisfaction and Commitment, was the most positively significant factor represented as a retention incentive, followed by Traditional Benefits, Factor 3. The next logical step was to examine the new variables through cross-tabulation against the demographic data in a manner similar to the initial cross-tabs examination. 41 Cross-Tabulation gj N variables A different presentation technique will be conducted for the new factors than was done in the initial cross-tablulation results, albeit in a much more summarized form. For it should be apparent by examination of the new variable titles that there exists a closeness to the initial weyeballed" groupings. However, three additional manipulations of the data were performed in an attempt to normalize what appeared at first to be problems with the results. First, chi-square and Cramer's V statistics were requested in order to provide a basis to help Judge validity and significance of the data. Next, response values were altered from 0-4 to 1-5, believing that the zero may have played some effect upon computer calculations. This proved to be an erroneous presumption on the author's part and the manipulation itself had no effect on the data. Finally, In an attempt to reduce the degrees of freedom, (ultimately the numbers of cells in the cross-tabs matrix with less than 5 responses), certain data were combined, or transformed. For instance, question 10 asked for the number of dependents other than the spouse, and provided for choosing up to 9. Since no one selected more than 6, and only 8 chose four, as many as 15 cells with less than 5 responses could be eliminated by rolling up all the last several categories Into "3 or more". This little manipulation had an expected, acceptable effect on the data, and lent more confidence to the results. The matrix printouts are found in Appendix 3. Generally there Is significance in or between the data if the chi-squared significance coefficient Is <-.050. That Is not to say that findings are invalid if 42 - - - ° the values are >.05, merely that there Is no significant difference represented among the variables. The values 1-5 across the top of the matrix represent a decreasing strength of an incentive to stay in the Army as the value increases, with a neutral point, (3). Table 2-2 provides a tabular portrayal of the first 8 new variables cross-tabulated by nine demographic variables. (Underlined values highlight areas where a potentially significant difference exists among the variables.) TABLE 2-2 < ----------- CHI-SQUARE SIGNIFICANCE COEFFICIENT ------------ > FCTR: MEAN RANK ETHN MLFM AFCS TPSP YRST RKEX DEPS EDLV 1 3.66 .623 .142 .257 .128 .921 .418 .195 .484 .172 2 1.29 .535 .875 .414 .894 .732 .261 .999 .751 .000 3 2.05 .170 .443 .314 .231 .867 .230 .869 .666 .253 4 4.04 .227 .901 .086 .659 .895 .499 .967 .487 .031 5 2.20 .528 .919 .952 .607 .018 .204 .782 .936 .992 6 3.53 971 .736 .934 .135 .904 .496 .500 .805 .934 7 1.39 .087 .255 .740 .469 .509 .044 .080 .466 .174 8 2.22 .504 .450 .481 .777 .258 .826 .557 .592 .819 RANK = Rank YRST = Years Planned to Stay ETHN - Ethnic Group RKEX = Expected Rank MLFM = Military Family DEPS - Number of Dependents AFCS - Active Federal Commissioned Service EDLV = Educational Level TPSP = Temporarily Separated from Spouse From Table 2-2 one can generalize that there will be little difference found in retention attitudes for the eight new factors among ethnic groups, based upon years AFCS, or based upon the number of dependents in the family. Table 2-2 suggests that rank may delineate the overall Satisfaction and Fulfillment factor. In fact, 76.0% of Colonels, compared with 57.6% of LTC's, show strong agreement in factor. Similarly 43*,*. * . . -**. , **,** . was conducted. The procedure tests the Hull Hypothesis which states that there are no true differences between sub-groups attributable to the variables being considered. To succeed in a rejection of the Mull Hypothesis would lead us to believe that differences do exist between the variables. Statistics provided by the procedure assist in rejecting the Mull Hypothesis; the F ratio; and F probability. (It is not undesirable to not find differences between various groups, i.e., to support the Hull Hypothesis.) *The observed significance level is the probability of obtaining an F statistic at least as large as the one calculated when all population means are equal. If this probability is small enough, the 11 hypothesis that all population means are equal is rejected." The Procedure An F probability of 0.035 means that chance distribution explains the results only 35 times out of 1000 -- a good basis for rejecting the Null Hypothesis in this example. Table 2-3 provides a matrix comparing the twelve new variables determined by factor analysis with all 11 demographic factors. F ratios >1.0, with an associated F probability of <=0.15, were selected as ones which reject the Hull Hypothesis, or which contain results within sub-groups that are possibly significantly different. In other words, only 15% or less of the differences observed between groups will be attributable to chance. Matrix cells left blank indicate that the Null Hypothesis is supported, or that the explanation for the data could be due to chance alone, or that no differences exist between sub-groups. Four new variables, in addition to those used in Table 2-2 are: 9 - Able to Plan Life; 10 - Opportunity to Command; 11 - Family Likes Army; and 13 - Family Programs Important. Demographic variables not used in Table 2-2 include: SEX; and MARR - Marital Status. 46 ONE-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE < - Demograp--------- Demographic Factos -> NEW (F Ratio / F Prob.) FACTOR RANK SEX 3THN MLFM AFCS MARR TPSP YRST RKEX DEPS EDLV 1 1.77 1.85 .12 .11 2 2.57 1.71 4.41 .11 .12 .01 3 4 3.05 7.34 2.85 1.93 2.62 .08 .01 .09 .13 .05 5 6 2.92 .02 7 2.94 3.37 2.25 2.03 .09 .07 .04 .08 8 2.23 .14 9 2.20 2.56 1.99 2.08 .14 .11 .07 .07 10 2.18 1.93 10.48 .14 .13 <.00 11 2.33 2.39 2.17 .13 .04 .14 13 4.55 3.08 .03 .01 Table 2-3 One-Way Analysis of Variance Comparison of Tables 2-2 and 2-3 show a "validation" of underlined chi-square significance coefficients, in that they also appear underlined in corresponding F statistic cells in Table 2-3. The cell at the intersection of "Temporary Separation from Spouse", and new factor 5, *Family Program Level", is highlighted by Table 2-2, but not in the one- 47 wy ANOVA matrix. Inspection of one-way ANOVA printouts shows however, that chance explains only 17% of the results, very close to the arbitrary standard set in the study. By including the sex and marital status demographic factors, and the four not previously considered new t* variables, 16 additional areas emerge where potentially significant differences among sub-groups occur. It should be pointed out that the last four of the twelve new variables determined by factor analysis * account for only 6.7% of the data in a progressively smaller amount. So their significance should be considered to be represented by correspondingly smaller values. * Another caution exists in the process of interpreting this data. *. Initially the sex variable was to be excluded because the entire population contained only 3 females, and inspection of the response frequencies revealed that 5 had responded. This disturbing bit of Information means that either >=2 but <=5 males incorrectly scored the mark sense forms, or equally described sets of wives took the survey! The latter hypothesis is considered the least likely, albeit the least desirable for the validity of the survey. What results from inclusion * of the sex factor is a matter of interest only, and is most probably not statistically significant. It reflects, however, only one difficulty in L* obtaining meaningful data from such a small, important segment of this successful population, one that tends to be under represented not only by sheer lack of numbers, i.e., the female officer. "A significant F statistic Indicates only that the population means 12 are probably unequal. It does not pinpoint where the differences are." d The Scheffe multiple comparison procedure is available to help determine 48 * V I.W.V..gr TV 1- UJI Li I N % who desire to stay 30 years or more agree with their ability to career plan, compared to only 41.4% of those planning to stay for 25 years or less before retiring. The rank one expects to achieve before retirement Is also a factor on how one perceives his/her career planning ability. Those believing they will make General Officer rank are more strongly positive in their planning ability in the Army, (62.5%), than those who feel they will only reach Colonel, (51.9%). (Interestingly enough, two officers in the Class of 1986 believe they will not advance beyond their present rank of LTC, and they both disagree with the concept of being able to plan one's life in the Army. Opportunity to Command Those with three or more dependents see opportunity to command in a stronger light, (96.0%), as an incentive to stay in the Army than do those with fewer dependents, so that of those with no dependents, the number is reduced to 80% -- a relationship that tends to underscore the heavy family orientation of this particular population of successful officers. The view of command opportunity as an incentive for retention also appears to be strongly affected by education level. Of those from Law, Medical, and miscellaneous Doctoral disciplines, only 54.5% were attracted by the prospects of command, while 92.4% of those with Bachelor and Master degrees were attracted by command. These figures reflect the real prospects of command for officers from the specialty branches, where command is seldom either a possibility or *required" to be considered "successful". 511 , ' 'o '" -,..... . .. .,..... . . ... .......... ....... .. . .. ..... ... BNDNOTES 1. Kenneth A. Anderson, LTC, Retention Survey: clasosjj 1980, p. 41. 2. I=., p. 4. 3. Qi., p. 40. 4. LiI., p. 41, 5. Department of the Army, Survey Estimate of Retention f Army Personnel. (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1969), p.31; and Department of the Army, Survey Estiate of Retention of Army Personnel, (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1971), p. 11. 6. James J. Foley, Jr., NAJ, Th_e Erosion of Fringe Benefits and ItA Negative Effect on Attitudes and Career Intentions of Reaular Army Officers, p. 104. 7. Anderson, p. 44. %. 8. Marina J. Norusis, "Identifying Dimensions of Communities: Factor Analysis,* fPSS/PC, 1986, p. B-41. 9. Ibid., p. B-44. 10. Ibld., p. B-45. 11. Marnia J. Norusis, "What's Your Proof? One-Way Analysis of Variance," SPSS-x Introductory Statistics Guide, 1983, p. 111. 12. Ibid., p. 111. 52 .9. CHAPTER III CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CONCLUSIONS The HvDotheses To develop basic conclusions from all of these observations, it is necessary to revisit the hypotheses that were formed prior to constructing the survey and analyze the results. By comparing those early "best guesses" to the survey results it will be possible to state which of these hypotheses were "supported", and which were "not supported". The study hypothesized in both general and specific areas. The general hypothesis includes that: (1) The majority of successful officers are not personally attracted by family program initiatives. (2) These programs are not important contributors to their personal, positive career commitment attitudes. (3) A majority of these officers will find family program initiatives important to the Army as a whole. (4) Family programs which emanate from small unit level are more meaningful and effective for soldiers and their families. (5) Other factors could be identified which contribute to a stronger positive career commitment attitude for successful officers than purely family-related ones. It is possible to develop a "scorecard" of sorts for these five general hypotheses based upon the results of the survey. 53 (Continued) HYPOTHESIS ANALYSIS RESULTS SUMMARY SPT/NOT SPT (c) The services provided Negative Incentive NOT SPT by Army Community Service (ACS). (d) The services provided Negative Incentive NOT SPT by the Chaplaincy. (e) Weight allowances Not tested separately during PCS moves. (f) Adequacy of Medical Almost Neutral SPT /Dental Care for Families. (g) The CHAMPUS program. Negative Incentive NOT SPT CATEGORY III: (Contributes to negative career commitment attitudes) (a) Long work periods away Very Negative Incentive SPTfrom family members. New Factor 54 (b) Peacetime unaccompanied Very Negative Incentive SPT tours. New Factor 14 (c) Assignments to Very Negative Incentive SPT undesirable regions, New Factor #4 installations and locations. Table 3-1. Performance of Specific Hypotheses Discussion While specific hypotheses were not supported in a number of cases, some very interesting relationships did emerge with respect to this group, representing the Army's top performers among commissioned officers in their bracket. Note that Category II variables were thought to have neutral, or no effect upon retention. Somewhat unexpectedly they proved to be negative factors for these officers. The population under study Is one with strong family orientation. As was discovered, over 97% of the group had been married at one time, 56 96% are married as of the survey, and nearly 82% are still married to their first spouse. And this is a group whose families strongly approves of the Army - they like it! There is no question that this group is highly affected by family action plan initiatives, probably more so than * any other group, because of the high proportion of families in it. But the survey results demonstrate that family-related programs are not instrumental in causing this group to stay in the Army. On the other hand, certain factors which impact upon the family, Absence from Family for example, are demonstrated to be seriously negative retention factors. Vhether they are strong enough to cause this particular group to actually separate or retire is not clear. But the Absence from Family factor is strong enough, and has historically been, that it may affect fully successful officers prior to their ever reaching this particular point of success In their careers, (the Army War College), and cause them to leave. The study has shown beyond reasonable doubt that this group is extremely well pleased with its career choice. That apparently speaks very well for the time and effort that the Army has placed into improving a personnel management system which gives multiple roads to success and Job satisfaction. Just as vitally, this population is convinced of the importance of its labors serving the nation. Patriotism and service are not foreign ideals to these respondents. (one only has to see this War College Class in a mass assembly to be able to witness their genuine, quiet emotional responses to a subject with only the slightest bit of patriotic reference. Burly infantrymen, with two or three combat tours behind them, who are easily made misty-eyed by mention of what it is they are willing to fight for.) It's a group which feels, as one of their .57 strongest responses, the positive call of serving with soldiers, not just with their contemporaries, but with "soldiers", that which makes an Army. * That, after all, Is so very important: certainly to the defense of the Nation. The factor of Job Commitment and Satisfaction is the strongest one identified by the study as a positive retention incentive for *" successful commissioned officers. This quality of "liking what we do" has positive effects upon everything the Army does, to include the success of family programs. The Traditional Benefits and privileges associated with military service are also seen as strong incentive factors for retention by this group. The retirement syscem, commissary, medical/dental care, promotion opportunities, and adequate pay system, and the post exchange are all seen in a positive light. But all is not totally well in Camelot. While the retirement system has almost universally strong backing, particularly from those destined to the Army's highest positions of service, other areas of benefit and privilege are losing support among the younger officers in this group. (If their are any "young" officers in this group, and there are upwards of 53 of them, it is because they have been super successful performers, selected to attend here a little before their time, so to speak.) Nearly 42% of these people expressed some doubts about the value of our traditional benefits, presumably either because they have been weakened over the years, or because of growing negative comparability with similar benefits available in the private sector. Medical/Dental care and pay adequacy appear to be two areas that would fall into this category. The Commissary and Post Exchange are privileges that do receive heavy competition from the private sector from which this group can freely partake. 58J ,-.- - - - - - , " , - ,-, . . . -. - . . . . . . - - .. . . - - . . . the logical questions: What about successful enlisted soldiers? What about mid-career successful officers, NCO's and soldiers? And, what is the opinion of the spouses of these groups? What is it that attracts these groups to make the Army a career and profession. What makes top performers, at any point in their careers, leave the Army? The immediate * action groups should be the U.S. Army War College Military Studies Program, the U.S. Army Research Institute, and the Department of the Army itself. The Department of the Army, having pledged "to capitalize on what is working well", should begin reexamining the basic privileges and benefits that make the Army attractive to successful soldiers and their families. The value of the retirement and medical/dental systems as traditional retention incentives are hard to deny. This study reinforces for the Army the apprehensions that many demonstrate about the longevity of these systems, given the attention from a variety of counter special interest groups, and Congress, to pare them back. Now the reinforcement comes from a relatively senior group of officers, both about their value as incentives, and in their apprehension that they have been weakened. DA must ensure that every program, whether it be medical force structure, or ones directly related to the medical benefit, be examined for its potential to affect the retention of successful soldiers. Those successful Officers who are most prone to leave, do so at the point that they feel they still have enough time to launch another successful career. Thus, advertising to these groups the high probability for eventual career satisfaction, as evidenced by the feeling of this group, might well have tremendous pay off. While examining what 61 is going well, DA must give special emphasis and support to the * development of unit level programs. Much of this has already been accomplished from field resources, and DA should underwrite the effort with standardized unit level packages that build upon the proven working programs in use today in various commands. It is sad commentary that these programs, ones with high potential as retention incentives, all too often are built from scratch by each successive commander, don't exist in many cases, work by trial and error, or exist by force of luck. Small units, particularly those between maneuver division and battalion level are, the most effective agents for family program development and execution. Commanders must ensure that each element under their trust has a working system that tends to the care of its familit3 particularly during those times that provide the greatest single negative incentives to retention, the absence of the soldier from his family. It is obvious that time in the field is important to the Army Mission. But it must be well-spent productive time, and families must be convinced of its necessity. If they are not, no number of day care centers will make the difference. Beyond closely examining field duty for wasted time, commanders can convince the family of the necessity to train in the field, or at least lessen its pain to the family, by making available those outreach services that only a unit of families can provide. 62 APPENDIX 1 THE SURVEy INSTRUMENT On the following questions, 1 - 11, select the answer pertaining to you which Is correct, or most nearly correct. Please mark the corresponding block on the Scan-Tron form with a #2 pencil only. 1. What is your current rank? (0) Lieutenant Colonel 118 (1) Colonel 25 (2) Other 0 2. Are you Male or Female? (0) Male 138 (1) Female 5 3. What do you consider to be your main racial or ethnic group? (0) Black 11 (1) White 130 (2) Hispanic 0 (3) Oriental 0 (4) Other 2 4. Do you come from a "military family"? (i.e., were you a "service brat"?) (0) Yes 26 (1) No 116 5. How many years of Active Federal Commissioned Service have you completed as of January 19867 (Nearest full year.) (0) 17 years or less 13 (1) 18 - 19 years 43 (2) 20 - 21 years 61 (3) 22 - 23 years 24 (4) 24 years or more 2 6. What is your marital status? (0) Single, never married. 4 (1) Married for the first time. 117 (2) Remarried, was divorced. 19 (3) Remarried, was widowed. 1 (4) Legally separated. 1 (5) Widowed. 0 (6) Divorced. 1 7. While you are attending the Army War College, are you geographically separated from your spouse either as a "road-runner" or in another temporary manner? (0) Yes 10 (1) No 128 (2) I do not have a spouse. 5 .. . , ,." ",..£ ." ""/ '.\'€2,;€'. '> ...'<".2 -' . . ' '-' ,'/ •","1-1-'". 18. I feel like I am doing something useful with my life. (0) Strongly Agree 71 (1) Agree 71 (2) Neither Agree nor Disagree 1 (3) Disagree 0 (4) Strongly Disagree 0 19. A functioning unit-level family support system pays more dividends to Army families than more costly initiatives that require Army funding. (0) Strongly Agree 25 (1) Agree 53 (2) Neither Agree nor Disagree 39 (3) Disagree 19 (4) Strongly Disagree 7 20. All things considered, my family is more secure in the Army than they would be in civilian life. (0) Strongly Agree 15 (1) Agree 42 (2) Neither Agree nor Disagree 57 (3) Disagree 22 (4) Strongly Disagree 7 21. The Army's concern for families was instrumental in my decision to stay in the Army. (0) Strongly Agree 2 (1) Agree 7 (2) Neither Agree nor Disagree 26 (3) Disagree 69 (4) Strongly Disagree 39 22. My family likes being a part of the Army. (0) Strongly Agree 13 (1) Agree 85 (2) Neither Agree nor Disagree 29 (3) Disagree 14 (4) Strongly Disagree 2 - 23. I am committed to the lifestyle of the Army. * (0) Strongly Agree 26 (1) Agree 88 (2) Neither Agree nor Disagree 20 (3) Disagree 8 (4) Strongly Disagree 1 24. So far in my career In the Army, I have been able to plan my life. (0) Strongly Agree 6 (1) Agree 71 (2) Neither Agree nor Disagree 29 (3) Disagree 29 (4) Strongly Disagree 8 1-4 THE FOLLOWING INSTRUCTIONS APPLY TO QUESTIONS 25 - 52 ON THE NEXT TWO PAGES: How strong of an INCENTIVE were the following programs, subject areas, and/or services to YOU in your decision to stay in the Army? Apply the scale of STRENGTH OF INCENTIVE to the items listed in the left column by selecting the appropriate number from the scale below. Next mark It on the Scan-Tron sheet with a 02 pencil. (0) Definitely an Incentive to stay. (1) Probably an Incentive to stay. (2) No opinion/Don't know about this item. (3) Probably not an Incentive to stay. (4) Definitely not an Incentive to stay. 25. Opportunity for family (0) (1) (2) (3) (4) to travel. 22 75 11 30 5 26. Educational opportunities (0) (1) (2) (3) (4) for children and spouse. 3 23 23 48 46 27. Opportunities for home (0) (1) (2) (3) (4) ownership. 3 3 3 39 95 28. Community involvement by (0) (1) (2) (3) (4) family members. 1 23 29 57 33 29. Experience of living in (0) (1) (2) (3) (4) foreign lands. 22 87 7 22 5 30. Service in units that (0) (1) (2) (3) (4) showed genuine concern. 24 71 22 19 7 31. Availability of services in (0) (1) (2) (3) (4) off-post community. 2 17 37 58 29 32. An adequate pay and (0) (1) (2) (3) (4) allowance system. 20 65 8 37 13 33. A feeling of patriotism for (0) (1) (2) (3) (4) my country. 61 70 5 5 2 34. Availability of government (0) (1) (2) (3) (4) housing. 6 39 21 39 37 35. Availability of child-care (0) (1) (2) (3) (4) centers. 1 12 21 42 66 36. The services provided by (0) (1) (2) (3) (4) Army Community Services. 1 12 28 43 59 1-5 V..VV-u -w w~ W v IZ- ;w 'YX2-z 1%7 - _ _l w' 1 .72t I -T. K! .7o' .11 ... . * 37. The services provided by (0) (1) (2) (3) (4) the Chaplaincy. 5 31 29 39 39 38. Adequacy of Family Medical (0) (1) (2) (3) (4) and Dental care. 17 68 10 31 17 39. The adequacy of the family (0) (1) (2) (3) (4) CHAMPUS Program. 7 30 21 43 42 40. The opportunity to command. (0) (1) (2) (3) (4) 79 50 7 3 4 41. Long periods in the field (0) (1) (2) (3) (4) away from my family. 3 1 27 54 58 42. Peacetime unaccompanied (0) (1) (2) (3) (4) tours. 3 0 22 44 58 43. Assignments to undesirable (0) (1) (2) (3) (4) regions, posts, locations. 3 1 21 50 68 44. On-post gymnasiums/physical (0) (1) (2) (3) (4) fitness centers. 7 50 33 31 22 45. The importance of what I (0) (1) (2) (3) (4) am doing. 89 51 0 0 3 46. The opportunity to serve (0) (1) (2) (3) (4) with soldiers. 80 53 7 2 1 47. Commissary services. (0) (1) (2) (3) (4) 12 73 19 27 12 48. Post Exchange services. (0) (1) (2) (3) (4) 10 65 29 28 11 49. Adequacy of the Retirement (0) (1) (2) (3) (4) system. 51 79 5 6 2 50. Satisfaction with my Job. (0) (1) (2) (3) (4) 87 53 0 1 2 51. The *uniqueness" of the (0) (1) (2) (3) (4) military profession. 56 71 11 2 3 52. The opportunity for (0) (1) (2) (3) (4) promotion. 36 75 13 13 2 YOUR ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON THE BACK OF THIS FORM WILL BE APPRECIATED. 1-6 , . . , . . . ,. .. -.- .. ,% . , .-.'.. . . . .. - . - .-. % - ... . ,- - . - . -. - 539 - CHAMPUS - red tape. - 512 - I know no other to compare it toot - 513 - (Unit-level family programs) lacks the stamp of "officialdom" of the system - too Informal. - 519 - (Army family initiatives) are too sporadic and disjointed. Confuses the soldier and his leadership. - 522 - My wife likes the Army; my children no. - Many answers do not reflect my feelings on the item or program, but merely that it has not affected me or my family. I strongly support family programs and morale support activities as very important. Medical, commissary and PX are as well. I think and insurance program for dependant medical care might be the answer for that problem. - While lower level family programs are more effective, they must be top driven, supported and coordinated. Spousal responsibilities must be acknowledged and appreciated. - Forget all the other family programs except -medical/dental - we don't have them now. - We have two kinds of Income - financial and psychic. If the first Is reasonably adequate - it is the second that determines "retention" - Things like serving with soldiers, Job satisfaction, etc, are psychic income; ergo, the higher the psychic income, the larger the retention. - Family programs should seek to make families independent, not dependent. This is, teach them how to manage money, care for children, determine If schools are adequate, etc. This Is best done by top-down programs - programs that the community puts into place. - Some of your units are bogging down in family stuff over and above a good sponsorship program, or a solid monthly newsletter. - A chain of concern Is humane and good business, but it varies from unit to unit. We're moving into an era where even brigade commanders' wives work, and make no apologies - many battalion commander's wives do so as well. We should prepare for the development of this trend and put institutional, not local, programs in place. Give people something they can count on where ever they are and be prepared to staff it with civilians and pay for it. - Units will always help where they can, but their main mission, to train hard, often gets set aside because they have to do for families what, I believe, community organizations should do. - If asked what the best thing a unit could do for families is, I'd say to treat the "old man" decently on the Job and try to get him home In time to enjoy his family. There is no substance for his presence. 2-3 , ' -; N' ', .<, '. . '<.'.'. : :.: :. . :. :... . .. . . ... .7 . ... APPENDIX 3 SELECTED STATISTICAL PRINTOUTS NOTE: The printouts appear in approximately the same order as they are discussed In the study text. Occasionally the order of the printouts has been adjusted within a particular sub-appendix to facilitate the most efficient page layout. Subject Area Page Frequency Response with Condescriptive ...... .. 3-1-1 Initial Cross-Tabulation .... ............ 3-2-1 Cross-Tabulation with Statistics ........ 3-3-1 Factor Analysis Tables ............... 3-4-' Cross-Tabulation Statistics from New Variables . 3-5-1 Analysis of Variance Tables ... ........... .. 3-6-1 ikY ! c C.. U. 3 4- ir -s 4- C~I .0 *.l~ 14V .. t 0 C, f.. ru C- - . r- C-. C. a O? r-4 = . Ir . -C 21 0,0 - Iat IL C.C U. S .C U..- 6* .53 = . . or. a. I of. 0 ' 4.or'fw C P, I-C C. C! 16PL . C.1 . t.'C . C Cr ir. 4r. 41 3-I U.L LU C 4F~ IL or a- v. Or r 3l 5- C7C-, -k cC. c cD' m ZU. N'C. %C' L r J.CU c nC C. -IC- c% IC \ S.- t i v f-.$ s-a * 'S -LL. oa C c UI t sSe -S o ! 2 L C- C- 2 .5 Ci 5 c L_. 4L * 2I *1 1- 4x w* a.. NC fC U. rt CL4 S ar 41 L" Li Sr U C. ISa ora le cc P5% P5 CV CC 2 wfl wire . c S.- Li, c- *T r- *- S. C F, U. S. . * * - PS - for r m 'C CL Li wtL LL. w a a u C a.u -. 61 Cr a.kU W Itc m- = C '.C I~b be.t U C ?N i t- .l r LC 4. i a.c.c f, La~% t4 O . C a 0~a O cCp w- S. .L U. C. . C .e- C I- 3S u a2L& 6r.9!.?I .C2 C4-~C (3I C. O8 9..SL V- C C.S. CL Ox x t . *, C C_ C, ;~ M CC r- .. I C_ V C. U. C 3a U * * S a 00- 'S~~C S.- 2 ,IL5' Ck S. Ur L. V, ILC -'V~S ~ - 5 * ~ ~~~ c c.Nf? ~ - 5 Z,4 a a c ~ 4 V CL rs~ 9L 41.v or- 4.C CSrC .I' C IC- I.-W IL 0 *-F I I C a .-L 4- K- C -S7 41 N 41 *- CI *S * lk or w2 V. CLS C 4 LLW v CC& IC S ec.. a~~~~1 C- 1Ca .. C- S- I V ONSt.- e. L a5 U... CZ CL. L. 3w U. -L r* U I L 'Y lk LL d, Ck0 L& w. U a 5-, cam LL cc4 a.~C 3.- Cm~ z.S- a . 46 a L% or , I -j rw 91 S k U , - s$ 1- 0 .=)' ;a w. I - 2~ ~ £iL2 v 3. O m2K 6-T-E ~~ N.ft' C.-E C~ -C C- C- C , U. *s raC .. 1.U * ft.Z ftft . Q ~L ~ I7 FC,1*.S ifft 2 s 1-I c 4,-, 4-~~~. gk. U..* * i.I le r, C .C . ,f ' I c t 91 41' 5~~l O.. C' ' I.# 1* . U. C *~r IL L.I C N OW IL LLftI C b- C' IL U. -A t LC~ 0 a It L r-. 3. L 4r. 0 L iL G.~ M I % k: ..- v LLI C' IV 2 4 SL a n Z If% 'C~V biU.-JU £~r 6fS~ t. IA, 11 C 4' C U.c Iif US - - I5 5- * & M. ~ .. ~ a fta~ftall or . Ar JrC IFt-U. ~ 5 f U. i VS~,U i* VEUuE ol-T-E S.C- C.~4 or. a. -N C I.& Z I- *f F, C *- L& *L W - o . . a. :" Gn NK 1* S. >.C~i 06 - . c-- ft- V Wb L N c - V MC. c L& -e~ C L~si-O* SC Iq b~~C MW .S .fW C C. U IL a V Sg CCOC2 -U. S~ L . C -- CS Q V,. W1CI S. L L V cL 4m4 w 2g ~ IA.0 N. ifU . 1. -. &N " - NN S.- V.UUO 00 -%lV IL IL &L Z 4's p. -T. FM 1- e,4 - -- r U-.- 3.- c I - C c F.. L ek 8.L 4 Ckt *.NL C. U.V - C- mt' m OL. *e. ?I a g.- 4 -VS C 1-ft rarr zM 1i 0,U L- A, 2 . C- 2 P I l 7 .t . 0. 0 CU. 0 4, 43 CLL Uc -eL -, W3 r In. -ItL c~ 'a. v' 3C tt tw fto fis iei% , - I- el. -S- 3 C~~" -; - &.4- t .14 ~ t8 40) C4 a4 IL2 1 s Z% tI . 4A, Z SILA.4-fr!4- U. iT-I-w C. c oCr C. U. v Or f\ f, P, a0. I C v L:--3 -e4 'S C t44245 C .14. V/C.W C. ' c 4-Lf C a, c0 . C C C. I' MUV(P, . C cCC. 'ac C c. %f a *~4 -1 .4I U.aC I ~i.O. V. WC It * 2 '. 4~ 4. It 2 4 41 vCu2 fKC~.K 4 or -- . ~ - 5 -- a IL m * 44. 41 LL 74- %r lCje.- %r It~ C P C.RCL 4- CN L ' a w- KKii o K0a A c Itf a )a 4r/ IL ST-T-E I- C -C C- -L C . U. Al t * -. U. - * # 9.- 1. 2 2 -. O. 'COVAU. LIL %-. v C. .JUifP,~ C. w c w j C L. V F P O O C- ? 2. 2&. 91, w--3- Ll* . u2 -S CC . C-. * or -S c tza 01 L Cu LL.'~'~.. C O rC - C a. NVI. K & .. a. .. N ' . a C %La .o '.. C CC 2 r9r- '. .. CC a C, orma U. c. A c. *a IL a. I . 20 be v IF W ; C.r C. r. C, 0 C w, c- C 1 C!.u . l 1. C: ;t I*I *r W. C I. w. 'r, -9 - -3-iI m. M 3- I I *U. m f ,~rI 3 C O C C - -C 9O C - 0- a3 -w ..Pr4LC-Q 4r U .j lt. I"zat a I.- P -U . v V. v a 2 t - if C c L~4 . C -wC3I P I~r Q L- L - r--.3. Z Ct IL tIl S - -- :; -1 1 tg -A w Zf a5 3*3 orw