Only 5% of the respondents used post-deployment CF/DND services. ...... Self-efficacy facilitates perseverance in the fa
Quality of Life among Military Families: Results from the 2008/2009 Survey of Canadian Forces Spouses Kerry Sudom Psychosocial Health Dynamics Personnel and Family Support Research
DGMPRA TM 2010-017 August 2010
Defence R&D Canada Director General Military Personnel Research & Analysis
Chief Military Personnel
Quality of Life among Military Families: Results from the 2008-2009 Survey of Canadian Forces Spouses
Kerry Sudom Psychosocial Health Dynamics Personnel and Family Support Research
Director General Military Personnel Research & Analysis Technical Memorandum DGMPRA TM 2010-017 August 2010
Author (Original signed by) Kerry Sudom, PhD
Approved by
(Original signed by) Catherine Campbell, MASc Section Head – Personnel and Family Support Research
Approved for release by
(Original signed by) Kelly Farley, PhD Chief Scientist – Director General Military Personnel Research and Analysis
The opinions expressed in this paper are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as the official position of the Canadian Forces, nor of the Department of National Defence.
© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of National Defence, 2010. © Sa Majesté la Reine (en droit du Canada), telle que représentée par le ministre de la Défense nationale, 2010.
Abstract …….. Families of military members face a number of unique challenges associated with the military lifestyle, including frequent relocations, temporary housing, spousal unemployment and underemployment, separations, and deployments of their military member to potentially dangerous situations. Such stressors can have adverse consequences for families of military personnel. This report presents an overview of the top-line findings from a survey administered to spouses/partners of Canadian Forces (CF) members in 2008. Descriptive-level statistics on the stressors experienced by the spouses of CF members, the potential outcomes of high levels of stress, and the factors that may buffer against or exacerbate these outcomes, are provided. The military can have a pervasive influence on family life, and conversely, the family can have an impact on the serving member as well as on the military organization as a whole. Families of military personnel provide support to members’ well-being, readiness, performance, and ability to carry out missions. The results of this survey will enhance understanding of the impacts of military service on families of CF personnel.
Résumé …..... Les familles des militaires se heurtent à un certain nombre de problèmes propres au mode de vie militaire, y compris les fréquentes réinstallations, le logement temporaire, le chômage et le sous-emploi chez les conjoints, les séparations, et les déploiements des membres militaires dans des situations qui peuvent être dangereuses. De tels facteurs de stress peuvent avoir des répercussions négatives sur les familles de personnel militaire. Le présent rapport présente un aperçu des conclusions d’un sondage mené auprès des conjoints de membres des Forces canadiennes (FC) en 2008. Les statistiques descriptives des facteurs de stress qui affectent les conjoints de membres des FC, les résultats potentiels des niveaux de stress élevés, et les facteurs qui peuvent atténuer ou exacerber ces résultats, sont fournis. La vie militaire peut avoir une influence profonde sur la vie de famille, et inversement, la famille peut avoir une influence sur le militaire en activité de service ainsi que sur l’organisation militaire dans son ensemble. Les familles des militaires offrent un soutien aux militaires en ce qui concerne leur bien-être, leur état de préparation, leur rendement et leur capacité de mener des missions. Les résultats du présent sondage amélioreront la compréhension des incidences du service militaire sur les familles de membres des FC.
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
i
This page intentionally left blank.
ii
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
Executive summary Quality of Life among Military Families: Results from the 20082009 Survey of Canadian Forces Spouses: Kerry Sudom; DGMPRA TM 2010-017; Defence R&D Canada – DGMPRA; August 2010. Background: Families of military members face a number of unique challenges associated with the military lifestyle, including frequent relocations, temporary housing, spousal unemployment and underemployment, separations, and deployments of their military member to potentially dangerous situations. The effects of military life on families will become more evident as military personnel continue to be deployed to high intensity areas. Evidence suggests that spousal support is a critical variable impacting not only the well-being of serving members but also the organization as a whole. Therefore, it is important to have knowledge of how families adapt to the demands of military life. Methods: A paper-based survey was mailed to a sample of 10,592 spouses/partners of Canadian Forces (CF) members, stratified based on gender and environment, from a centralized personnel database of CF Regular Force members. Surveys could not be delivered to 800 addresses, resulting in a final eligible sample of 9,792. Responses were received from 2,084 spouses, yielding an adjusted response rate of 21.3%. The aim of this report was to provide an overview of the responses to this survey. Findings: Descriptive data on time away, postings, and deployment experiences were reported. Across the stages of deployment, respondents’ positive feelings of pride and being in control increased from the pre-deployment to the deployment and post-deployment phase, whereas negative feelings of sadness, frustration, anxiety, apprehension, resentment, anger, and guilt decreased. Almost half of the respondents reported using at least one CF/DND service during deployment. Of those who did not use any services, most reported that they had no need, while a smaller percentage reported that they were not aware of services or that the type of service they needed was not available. Only 5% of the respondents used post-deployment CF/DND services. Of those who did not use any post-deployment services, almost one-quarter were not aware that services were available. Approximately one-fifth of the respondents had been diagnosed with depression at some point in their military partner’s career in the CF. For the military member, the most common diagnosis was for depression as well, although the rate was considerably lower than that of the spouses. Overall, respondents were very supportive of their military partner’s CF service. Most respondents preferred that deployments remain at a length of six months with Home Leave Travel Allowance (HLTA). Similar to time away for deployment, most spouses preferred that total time away in a 12-month period be no more than six months. Finally, over half of the respondents felt that military personnel should have no more than one six-month deployment in any three-year period.
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
iii
Significance: The military can have a pervasive influence on family life, and conversely, the family can have an impact on the serving member as well as on the military organization as a whole. Families of military personnel provide support to members’ well-being, readiness, performance, and ability to carry out missions. The results of this survey will enhance understanding of the impacts of military service on families of CF personnel.
iv
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
Sommaire ..... Quality of Life among Military Families: Results from the 20082009 Survey of Canadian Forces Spouses: Kerry Sudom; DGMPRA TM 2010-017; R & D pour la défense Canada – DRASPM; Août 2010. Contexte : Les familles des militaires se heurtent à un certain nombre de problèmes propres au mode de vie militaire, y compris les réinstallations fréquentes, le logement temporaire, le chômage et le sous-emploi des conjoints, les séparations et les déploiements des membres militaires dans des situations qui peuvent être dangereuses. Les conséquences de la vie militaire sur les familles deviendront plus évidentes à mesure que le personnel militaire sera déployé dans des zones d’intensité élevée. Les données indiquent que le soutien des conjoints est une variable critique ayant des incidences non seulement sur le bien-être des militaires actifs, mais aussi sur l’organisation dans son ensemble. Par conséquent, il est important de savoir comment les familles s’adaptent aux exigences de la vie militaire. Méthodologie : Un questionnaire en format papier a été envoyé à un échantillon de 10 592 conjoints de membres des Forces canadiennes (FC), stratifié en fonction du sexe et du milieu, à partir d’une base de données centralisée sur le personnel de la Force régulière des FC. Les sondages n’ont pu être livrés à 800 adresses, ce qui a conduit à un échantillon admissible final de 9 792. On a reçu des réponses de 2 084 conjoints, soit un taux de réponse ajusté de 21,3 p. 100. Le rapport a pour but de fournir un aperçu des réponses au présent sondage. Constatations : Les données descriptives sur les absences, les affectations et les expériences en déploiement ont été enregistrées. Pendant les phases de déploiement, les sentiments positifs de fierté et de maîtrise de la situation chez les répondants s’accroissaient de la phase de pré-déploiement à celle de déploiement et de post-déploiement, tandis que les sentiments négatifs de tristesse, de frustration, d’anxiété, d’appréhension, de ressentiment, et de colère décroissaient. Près de la moitié des répondants ont indiqué avoir utilisé au moins un service des FC et du MDN pendant le déploiement. La majorité de ceux qui n’avaient utilisé aucun service a indiqué l’absence de besoin, alors qu’un plus faible pourcentage a mentionné la non-connaissance des services offerts ou la non-disponibilité des services dont ils avaient besoin. Seulement 5 p. 100 de répondants ont utilisé les services post-déploiement des FC et du MDN. Près du quart de ceux qui n’avaient utilisé aucun service post-déploiement n’étaient pas au courant de la disponibilité de ces services. Environ un cinquième des répondants avait reçu un diagnostic de dépression à un certain moment de la carrière de leur partenaire militaire dans les FC. Pour le militaire, la dépression était aussi le diagnostic le plus courant, bien que le taux soit beaucoup plus faible que celui des conjoints. Dans l’ensemble, les répondants soutenaient beaucoup le service de leurs partenaires militaires dans les FC. La plupart des répondants préféraient que la période de déploiement ne dure que six mois avec Indemnité de retour au domicile (IRD). Comme pour la période de déploiement, la plupart des conjoints préféraient que la durée totale des affectations sur une période de 12 mois ne dépasse pas six mois. Finalement, plus de la moitié des répondants ont indiqué que le personnel militaire ne devrait pas avoir plus de six mois de déploiement sur une période de trois ans.
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
v
Signification : La vie militaire peut avoir une influence profonde sur la vie de famille, et inversement, la famille peut avoir un effet sur le militaire actif ainsi que sur l’organisation militaire dans l’ensemble. Les familles de personnel militaire offrent un soutien aux militaires en ce qui concerne le bien-être, l’état de préparation, le rendement et la capacité de mener des missions. Les résultats du présent sondage amélioreront la compréhension des incidences du service militaire sur les familles du personnel des FC.
vi
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
Table of contents Abstract …….. ................................................................................................................................. i Résumé …..... ................................................................................................................................... i Executive summary ........................................................................................................................ iii Sommaire ........................................................................................................................................ v Table of contents ........................................................................................................................... vii List of figures ................................................................................................................................. ix List of tables .................................................................................................................................... x Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ xi 1 Introduction............................................................................................................................... 1 2
3
4
5
Methods .................................................................................................................................... 2 2.1 Participants .................................................................................................................... 2 2.2 Procedure....................................................................................................................... 2 2.3 Measures........................................................................................................................ 2 2.3.1 Postings and Time away.................................................................................. 2 2.3.2 Deployment Experiences ................................................................................ 3 2.3.3 Health and Well-being .................................................................................... 3 2.3.4 Family Well-being .......................................................................................... 4 2.3.5 Personal Resources.......................................................................................... 5 2.3.6 Views on Policies............................................................................................ 5 2.4 Statistical Analyses and Weighting Procedures ............................................................ 6 Results....................................................................................................................................... 7 3.1 Demographics and Service Characteristics ................................................................... 7 3.2 Data Screening and Reliability Analysis ..................................................................... 10 3.3 Correlations among the Variables ............................................................................... 12 3.4 Postings and Time Away............................................................................................. 15 3.5 Deployment Experiences............................................................................................. 17 3.6 Health and Well-Being ................................................................................................ 26 3.7 Relationship................................................................................................................. 28 3.8 Views on Policies ........................................................................................................ 30 Discussion............................................................................................................................... 33 4.1 Overview of Findings .................................................................................................. 33 4.2 Limitations................................................................................................................... 35 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 38
References ..... ............................................................................................................................... 39 Annex A .. Quality of Life among Military Families: A Survey of Spouses and Partners of Canadian Forces Members Survey..................................................................................... 43 DGMPRA TM 2010-017
vii
Section A: You and Your Military Spouse/Partner ................................................................. 45 Section B: You and Your Spouse/Partner’s Workload/Perstempo/Optempo ....................... 57 Section C: Your Health, Your Relationship, Your Family...................................................... 68 Section D: Your Relationship with your Spouse/Partner ........................................................ 74 Section E: Your Views on Policies.............................................................................................. 80 List of symbols/abbreviations/acronyms/initialisms ..................................................................... 85 Distribution list.............................................................................................................................. 87
viii
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
List of figures Figure 1: Time away for all Military Reasons in Past 12 Months................................................. 15 Figure 2: Difficulties with Reestablishment of Prior Activities when Relocated.......................... 16 Figure 3: Time away for Deployment in Previous 12 Months ...................................................... 17 Figure 4: Total Number of Deployments ...................................................................................... 18 Figure 5: Feelings Reported by Spouses throughout the Deployment Cycle ................................ 19 Figure 6: Feelings Reported by Spouses throughout the Deployment Cycle: Respondents whose Military Partner returned at least one year ago (n = 567)........... 20 Figure 7: CF/DND Services used during Deployment .................................................................. 21 Figure 8: Reasons for not using CF/DND Services during Deployment....................................... 22 Figure 9: Post-Deployment Services Used.................................................................................... 23 Figure 10: Reasons for not using CF/DND Services after Deployment........................................ 24 Figure 11: Child Behaviours during Deployment ......................................................................... 25 Figure 12: Percentage of Spouses and Military Members Diagnosed with a Psychological Disorder ............................................................................................... 26 Figure 13: Willingness to Reveal Personal Problems ................................................................... 27 Figure 14: Support for Military Service ........................................................................................ 28 Figure 15: Domestic Violence....................................................................................................... 29 Figure 16: Spouses’ Views on Maximum Length of Deployment ................................................ 30 Figure 17: Spouses’ Views on Maximum Time away in any 12-month Period for all Military Reasons ......................................................................................................... 31 Figure 18: Spouses’ Views on Maximum Number of Deployments in any 3-Year Period .......... 32
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
ix
List of tables Table 1: Demographic Characteristics of the pouses ...................................................................... 8 Table 2: Rank, Element, and Deployment Status of the Military Members.................................... 9 Table 3: Length of Relationship ...................................................................................................... 9 Table 4: Descriptive Statistics for the Survey Scales .................................................................... 11 Table 5: Correlations between Individual and Family Well-being, Social Support, and Self-Efficacy......................................................................................................... 13 Table 6: Correlations between Individual and Family Well-being and Coping Strategies ........... 14 Table 7: Number of Postings ......................................................................................................... 16
x
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
Acknowledgements The author would like to thank Dr. Mark Zamorski of the Deployment Health Section, CF Health Services Group HQ, for pre-publication review of this report.
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
xi
This page intentionally left blank.
xii
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
1
Introduction
Spouses of military members face a number of unique challenges associated with the military lifestyle, including frequent relocations, temporary housing, spousal unemployment and underemployment, separations, and deployments of their military member to potentially dangerous situations. Evidence suggests that the military can have a pervasive influence on family life, and conversely, that the family can have an impact not only on the serving member, but on the military organization as a whole. However, until recently, little research has been conducted within the Canadian Forces (CF) to address the interactions between military and family life, particularly from the perspective of the family. To address this shortcoming, a largescale survey of spouses and common-law partners of CF members was undertaken in 2005 as part of the Human Dimensions of Deployment Study (HDDS) project. The main report associated with this study reviewed the literature on the impact of spousal support on well-being of military members and on the military organization as a whole (Dursun & Sudom, 2009). It is clear that while the military can have a pervasive influence on family life, spouses also have an influence on individual-level factors such as military members’ psychological well-being, and organizational-level variables such as retention. A second survey of spouses/partners of CF members was undertaken in 2008, in order to assess the impact of military life on families along several dimensions, including health and well-being, impacts of deployments on children, and conflict between military and family life. The survey also included several variables which may moderate or buffer the impact of military life on families, including coping strategies and social support. Such variables may be potential targets for intervention by the CF and the Department of National Defence (DND) in order to attenuate the impacts of the demands of military life on spouses and families. For the purposes of the present research, “family” was defined as the spouses and common law partners of Regular Force military personnel and their children, and the survey results present the views of impacts of military life from the perspective of spouses. It is recognized that a broader definition of family is used by the CF in the provision of services under the Military Family Services Program (MFSP), which includes families of Reservists and parents of single Regular Force members (Canadian Forces Personnel Support Agency, 2010). The aim of this report is to provide descriptive information on spouses’ responses to the 2008 survey, and thus to contribute to the understanding of the impacts of military life on families. This paper will be followed by further more detailed analyses focusing on specific areas of the survey.
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
1
2 2.1
Methods Participants
A paper-based survey was mailed to the home addresses of a sample of 10,592 spouses and common-law partners of CF members, stratified based on gender and environment. The sample size was calculated based on an estimated response rate of 24% (i.e., the response rate found in the 2005/6 survey of CF spouses), using a confidence interval of +/-4% and a confidence level of 95%. The spouses’ addresses were obtained from a centralized personnel database of CF Regular Force members (Human Resources Management System). Surveys could not be delivered to 800 addresses, resulting in a final eligible sample of 9,792. The final sample consisted of responses received from 2,084 spouses, yielding an adjusted response rate of 21.3%. Since the response rate obtained was close to that estimated in developing the sample frame, as well as that obtained in the 2005/6 survey, no follow-up of non-respondents was carried out.
2.2
Procedure
The survey was granted ethical approval by the Social Science Research Review Board (SSRRB). The cover page of the survey provided details necessary to fulfil the requirements for informed consent, including information regarding the purpose of the study (i.e., to help understand the consequences of military service for the respondent and his/her loved ones, and to aid in the development of new ways of supporting families when military members are away from home), and assurance that participation was entirely voluntary and that participants were free to omit any question they did not wish to answer. Participants were also guaranteed that their responses would be kept anonymous and strictly confidential, and that results would only be reported in aggregate. On average, the survey required approximately one hour to complete. The questionnaire could be completed in either French or English.
2.3
Measures
The survey contained a number of measures to assess stressors, deployment experiences, and well-being.
2.3.1
Postings and Time away
Respondents were asked to report the number of military-related relocations they had experienced, as well as time away of their military spouse in total and for deployments in the last 12 months.
2
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
2.3.2
Deployment Experiences
Feelings and Experiences across the Deployment Cycle. Spouses were asked how often they experienced a number of feelings prior to, during, and after a deployment (e.g., resentment, pride). The respondents indicated how often they experienced each feeling on a scale ranging from 1 (“never”) to 5 (“always”). Use of CF/DND Services. The respondents were asked about their use of CF/DND services across the deployment cycle. Specifically, spouses were asked about whether they attended a pre-deployment screening, a post-deployment briefing, and whether they used specific services during and after the deployment (e.g., Military Family Resource Centres [MFRCs], social worker). If they did not use services, they were asked to select the reasons why they did not use the service (e.g., had no need). Child Behaviours during Deployment. Respondents were asked a number of questions regarding how their children responded to deployment. Fifteen behaviours (e.g., “decline in school performance”) were assessed on a scale ranging from 1 (“never”) to 5 (“always”).
2.3.3
Health and Well-being
Psychological Well-being. The abbreviated version of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ; Banks, Clegg, Jackson, et al., 1980), the GHQ-12, was used to measure psychological well-being. This scale measures non-psychotic psychological distress and is a valid and reliable indicator of distress in the general population. The scale focuses on recent interruptions in normal healthy functioning (e.g., “Have you recently lost much sleep over worry?”). Items were rated on a scale ranging from 1 (“not at all”) to 4 (“much more than usual”). The mean rating across the twelve items was used as the overall scale score. Depressive Symptoms. A shortened (nine-item) version of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D; Radloff, 1977) was used to assess symptoms of depression. Participants rated the frequency with which they experienced each of the nine symptoms on a scale ranging from 1 (“rarely or none of the time”) to 4 (“most or all of the time”). The mean rating across all of the items was used as the overall scale score. Diagnosed Psychological Disorders. Respondents were asked whether they had been medically diagnosed with a number of stress-related psychological disorders at any point during their military partner’s career, including posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, anxiety disorder, adjustment disorder, and any other stress-related physical or psychological problem. Suicidal Ideation. Respondents were asked whether they had ever seriously considered taking their own life at any time during their spouse/partner’s absence on a deployment. Partner’s PTSD Symptoms. Respondents were asked whether their CF spouse/partner had been diagnosed with PTSD, or if he/she exhibited signs of trauma (e.g., being easily startled by noise).
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
3
Fear of Reporting Weakness. Participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed with statements related to their willingness to reveal personal problems to the military spouse’s superiors, coworkers, other spouses and CF service providers (e.g., “It is not good to let your spouse’s superior(s) at work know about your personal or family problems because his or her career might be affected”). Responses ranged from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”). The items were adapted from Kahl’s (1965, 1968) Achievement Orientation Scale. Response frequencies for each of the four items are presented individually in order to examine perceptions of different sources of support.
2.3.4
Family Well-being
Work-family Conflict. The extent to which military life interfered with family, and family interfered with respondents’ work, were measured using modified items from the Work-Family Conflict (WFC) and Family-Work Conflict (FWC) scales (Netemeyer, Boles, & McMurrian, 1996). WFC refers to the extent to which the military partner’s career interferes with family life. A sample of WFC is “The demands of military service interfere with my home and family life.” FWC refers to the extent to which family life interferes with the respondent’s career. A sample FWC item is “Things I want to do at work don't get done because of the demands of my family orspouse/partner.” Each subscale contained six items. Extent of agreement with each statement was endorsed on a scale ranging from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”). Separate scores for WFC and FWC were obtained by averaging across the responses to each set of items. Family Issues. The 14-item Family Issues Scale (Thompson & Pasto, 2001), with wording adapted to reflect the perspective of the spouse rather than the military member, was used to assess issues experienced by families in response to a deployment. Responses to the items (e.g., “The deployment was stressful for me”) were rated on a scale of 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”). After reverse-coding the positively worded items, a single score was derived for each respondent, such that higher scores indicated higher levels of post-deployment stress. Confidence in the Spousal Relationship. Respondents were asked how often they feared divorce or termination of their relationship, their spouse/partner having an intimate relationship with another person while they are away, and their spouse/partner leaving them. Responses were on a scale ranging from 1 (“all of the time”) to 6 (“never”). These items are revised versions of one item (fear of marital breakdown) included in Spanier and Filsinger’s (1983) Dyadic Adjustment Scale. A single score was derived by averaging the responses on the three items. Support for the Member’s Military Career. To assess the extent to which participants supported their CF member’s military ambitions, they were asked to indicate the extent to which they were supportive in relation to their spouse’s current service, their spouses pursuing a longterm career in the CF, deploying in the next six months, and deploying in six months or longer using a four-point scale, from 1 (“not at all supportive”) to 4 (“very supportive”). Extent of support for each of the four aspects of military service is reported. Violence. Respondents were asked about whether their spouse/partner had ever been violent toward them, their children, older adults in the family, pets, property, or possessions. Responses are reported as frequency of experiencing violence by their partner in each of the specific situations. 4
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
2.3.5
Personal Resources
Perceived Social Support. A social support scale (Rosen & Moghadam, 1990) was used to assess perceptions of support from spouses of other military members, members of one’s own family (e.g., parents, siblings), members of the spouse/partner’s family, and friends not associated with the military. Respondents were asked two sets of questions on social support. The first was: “If you had a problem that you wanted to talk about, could you go to the following people?” Answers to this question ranged from 1 (“definitely no”) to 5 (“definitely yes”). The second question was: “Could you count on the following people for help with a personal or family problem?” The answers to this question ranged from 1 (“never”) to 5 (“all of the time”). While the first set of questions assessed the extent to which spouses felt they had a confidante, the second set of questions referred to instrumental support. To determine the factor structure for support, a factor analysis, using varimax rotation, was carried out. The factor analysis revealed three factors that accounted for approximately 75% of the variance: a.
support from family (both one’s own family and that of his/her military partner);
b.
support from friends; and
c.
support from spouses of other military members. Scores were averaged such that each respondent had three scores, corresponding to each of the three types of support.
Self-efficacy. The 10-item General Self-Efficacy Scale (Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995) was used to measure self-efficacy, or the belief that one’s own actions lead to positive outcomes. Perceived self-efficacy refers to optimistic self-beliefs that one can perform difficult tasks or cope with stressors. Self-efficacy facilitates perseverance in the face of obstacles and recovery from setbacks, and is an indicator of successful coping. Responses to the items (e.g., “I can always manage to solve difficult problems if I try hard enough”) ranged from 1 (“not at all true”) to 4 (“exactly true”). Responses were averaged to create a single score for each respondent. Coping. Coping strategies were measured using the Brief COPE (Carver, 1997). The Brief COPE is an abbreviated 28-item scale based on the COPE Inventory (Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub, 1989). The COPE Inventory was developed to measure a broad range of coping responses, both functional and dysfunctional. The Brief COPE contains 14 subscales of self-distraction, active coping, denial, substance use, use of emotional support, use of instrumental support, behavioural disengagement, venting, positive reframing, planning, humour, acceptance, religion, and self-blame. Responses ranged from 1 (“I usually don’t do this at all”) to 4 (“I usually do this a lot”). Responses were averaged to create a score for each of the 14 subscales for each respondent.
2.3.6
Views on Policies
Finally, respondents were asked a series of questions regarding how they believe the CF should manage deployments and time away, including what they felt should be the maximum length of a deployment with or without a mid-tour home leave, maximum period of time away for all military reasons in a 12-month period, and maximum number of deployments in a three-year period.
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
5
2.4
Statistical Analyses and Weighting Procedures
For this report, descriptive statistics (i.e., response frequencies, means, and standard deviations) were calculated for the variables with categorical responses. For the continuous variables, psychometric information for each variable is provided. More in-depth analyses of these data, investigating relationships among the variables, will be presented in further reports. As noted above, there were some discrepancies in the rank and environment distributions of the sample compared to that of the married/common law CF population. Due to these discrepancies, which likely resulted from the initial stratification of the sample, a weight variable was created for rank and environment combined. The analyses were run using both weighted (by environment and rank) and unweighted data. However, in the majority of cases, weighting the data did not greatly influence the results. Therefore, unless otherwise indicated (i.e., in cases where weighting resulted in a considerable difference in results) unweighted data are reported throughout.
6
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
3 3.1
Results Demographics and Service Characteristics
Demographic information on the respondents is shown in Table 1. The majority of the spouses were female and spoke English as their first language. Approximately one-fifth of the spouses were CF members themselves, the majority of these being part of the Regular Force. Demographic information for the CF members is shown in Table2. The majority of spouses in the study were married to Junior or Senior Non-Commissioned Members (NCMs). Approximately 12% of CF personnel were deployed at the time of the survey, and the majority of the deployments reported were overseas. Most of the CF members either had never deployed, or had been deployed more than six months ago. Where applicable, population estimates obtained from HRMS in December 2008, when the survey was administered, are shown or noted in a footnote. Length of relationship ranged from one year to 38 years, with a mean of 13.1 years. The distribution of relationship length is shown in Table 3. In addition, most respondents (68.2%) had children living in their home, and the majority of these were living in the home on a full-time basis.
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
7
Table 1: Demographic Characteristics of the Spouses Frequency, Percentage Gender1 Male Female Missing data
276 (13.2%) 1806 (86.7%) 2 (.1%)
Age Under 30 30-39 40-49 50 and above Missing data First Official Language English French Missing data Education Less than high school/some high school High school diploma Some college or CEGEP College or CEGEP diploma Some university University degree Some graduate school Graduate degree Missing data Military Status2 Not a current member of the CF Reserve Force (Class A) Reserve Force (Class B) Reserve Force (Class C) Regular Force Missing data
372 (17.9%) 789 (37.9%) 719 (34.5%) 192 (9.2%) 12 (.6%) 1608 (77.2%) 468 (22.5%) 8 (.4%) 114 228 230 487 247 534 71 160 13
(5.5%) (10.9%) (11.0%) (23.4%) (11.9%) (25.6%) (3.4%) (7.7%) (.6%)
1644 (78.9%) 35 (1.7%) 28 (1.3%) 4 (.2%) 366 (17.6%) 7 (.3%)
1
At the time of the study, 12.8% of the spouses in the married/common law Regular Force CF population were male, and 87.2% were female.
2
Dual-service couples comprise 15.2% of the married/common law CF population.
8
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
Table 2: Rank, Element, and Deployment Status of the Military Members Frequency, Percentage (Married/common Law Regular Force Population)
Frequency, Percentage (Sample) Rank Junior NCM
701
(33.6%)
18493 (46.6%)
Senior NCM
597
(28.6%)
11075 (27.9%)
Junior Officer
338
(16.2%)
5704 (14.4%)
Senior Officer
420
(20.2%)
4406 (11.1%)
28
(1.3%)
Sea
545
(26.2%)
13227 (33.3%)
Land
803
(38.5%)
19647 (49.5%)
Air
710
(34.1%)
6804 (17.1%)
26
(1.2%)
―
Preparing for a deployment (next 6 months)
106
(5.7%)
―
Currently deployed (total)
255
(12.2%)
―
214
(10.3%)
384
(18.4%)
―
1100
(52.8%)
―
239
(11.5%)
―
Missing data
―
Environment
Missing data Deployment Status
Currently deployed (overseas) Post-deployed (returned in last 6 months) Never deployed/deployed more than 6 months ago Missing data
2471
(6.2%)
Table 3: Length of Relationship Length of Relationship 1 – 5 years 6 – 10 years 11 – 15 years 16 – 20 years 21 – 25 years 26 – 30 years More than 30 years Missing data
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
Frequency 410 535 359 339 238 121 35 47
Percentage 19.7% 25.7% 17.2% 16.3% 11.4% 5.8% 1.7% 2.3%
9
3.2
Data Screening and Reliability Analysis
For the scales with continuous scores, screening procedures were employed in order to identify out-of-range values, estimate plausible means and standard deviations, and estimate other factors such as skewness, kurtosis, normality, and multicollinearity. The only case of extreme skewness or kurtosis was for substance use as a coping strategy, reflecting the fact that the majority of respondents tended not to cope with stressors by using alcohol or drugs (Table 4). The reliability of the scales used in the survey was estimated using the Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient, which is a measure of the internal consistency of a scale. Although a reliability coefficient of .70 is generally used for retaining a scale (Nunally, 1978) a more lenient cut-off is sometimes adopted. In particular, the number of items can adversely affect the reliability of a scale (Garson, n.d.). Thus, in cases where the number of items in a scale is low (as happens in cases where a full scale is divided into smaller subscales of only a few items each which are then assessed for reliability individually), a more lenient coefficient may be warranted. As indicated in Table 4, in the majority of cases, the reliability of the scales was adequate. Reliability was lower for several of the coping subscales, although this was not surprising given that they each consisted of only two items. Data used in the present study were also screened for multicollinearity and singularity through the exploration of bivariate correlations among all of the variables. Only three correlations exceeding .70 were found: between depression and psychological well-being; active coping and planning; and emotional support and instrumental support, indicating that these variables may be measuring aspects of the same underlying construct.
10
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
Table 4: Descriptive Statistics for the Survey Scales Items
Range
Mean, SD
Reliability Coefficient
Skewness
12
1-4
2.60 (.41)
.82
-.43
1.21
Depressive symptoms
9
1-4
1.66 (.67)
.92
1.19
.78
Work-family conflict
6
1-5
3.02 (.95)
.90
.01
-.59
Family-work conflict
6
1-5
2.53 (.98)
.90
.40
-.41
Family issues3
5
1-5
2.85 (.55)
.64
-.25
-.15
Relationship confidence
3
1-6
5.10 (1.03)
.86
-1.59
2.73
Support (family)
4
1-5
3.49 (1.00)
.80
-.32
-.67
Support (friends)
2
1-5
3.73 (1.06)
.85
-.81
-.03
Support (other spouses)
2
1-5
2.93 (1.30)
.84
.03
-1.25
10
1-4
3.26 (.46)
.91
-.47
.43
Self-distraction
2
1-4
2.56 (.73)
.49
-.00
-.40
Active
2
1-4
3.33 (.61)
.72
-.66
-.03
Denial
2
1-4
1.24 (.48)
.66
2.35
5.95
Substance use
2
1-4
1.18 (.48)
.91
3.27
12.11
Emotional support
2
1-4
2.58 (.86)
.83
-.04
-.79
Instrumental support
2
1-4
2.64 (.81)
.84
-.05
-.64
Behavioural disengagement
2
1-4
1.26 (.48)
.59
2.13
4.80
Venting
2
1-4
2.09 (.70)
.53
.56
.19
Positive reframing
2
1-4
2.96 (.78)
.78
-.36
-.63
Planning
2
1-4
3.37 (.62)
.73
-.83
.20
Humour
2
1-4
2.23 (.91)
.84
.34
-.80
Acceptance
2
1-4
3.05 (.66)
.53
-.42
-.18
Religion
2
1-4
1.78 (.97)
.90
1.11
.06
Self-blame
2
1-4
1.84 (.76)
.75
.88
.37
Scale/Subscale Psych well-being
Self-efficacy
3
Kurtosis
In obtaining the descriptive statistics for the Family Issues scale, only the respondents whose military partner had returned from a deployment within the last 12 months were selected, since the scale refers to stressors associated with reintegration following deployment.
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
11
3.3
Correlations among the Variables
The correlations between the variables measured in the study are shown in Table 5 and Table 6. High correlations (exceeding absolute value of .30) were found between symptoms of poor mental health (i.e., depressive symptoms, lower well-being) and high conflict between military and family life, conflict between the respondents’ work and family life, lower relationship confidence, lower self-efficacy, and lower levels of perceived social support. In addition, poor mental health was correlated with the use of more emotionally-focused and avoidant coping strategies, such as behavioural disengagement and self-blame.
12
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
Table 5: Correlations between Individual and Family Well-being, Social Support, and Self-Efficacy4 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1. Well-being
―
2. Depression
-.71***
―
3. WFC
-.33***
.38***
―
4. FWC
-.30***
.33***
.60***
―
5. Family issues5
-.46***
.46***
.55***
.44***
―
6. Rel. confidence
.33***
-.37***
-.32***
-.22***
-.50***
―
7. Self-efficacy
.39***
-.44***
-.18***
-.17***
-.27***
.24***
―
8. Support (family)
.30***
-.32***
-.19***
-.19***
-.21***
.23***
.22***
―
9. Support (friends)
.21***
-.22***
-.12***
-.13***
-.07
.08**
.19***
.40***
―
10. Support (other spouses)
.21***
-.21***
-.13***
-.08***
-.17***
.16***
.12***
.33***
.21***
4
* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001
5
For correlations involving the Family Issues variable, only those respondents whose CF partner had returned from a deployment within the last 12 months were selected.
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
13
10
―
Table 6: Correlations between Individual and Family Well-being and Coping Strategies6 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1. Well-being
―
2. Depression
-.71***
―
-.02
.05*
―
4. Active coping
.26***
-.29***
.02
―
5. Denial
-.19***
.23***
.15***
-.21***
―
6. Substance use
-.20***
.25***
.08***
-.12***
.18***
―
7. Emot. support
.16***
-.15***
.20***
.17***
.01
-.06**
―
8. Instr. support
.12***
-.14***
.20***
.17***
.02
-.05*
.76***
―
9. Disengagement
-.31***
.36***
.08***
-.34***
.41***
.28***
-.08***
-.07**
―
10. Venting
-.16***
.18***
.18***
-.05*
.25***
.17***
.22***
.18***
.21***
―
11. Pos. reframing
.25***
-.28***
.11***
.47***
-.14***
-.14***
.19***
.15***
-.25***
-.15***
―
12. Planning
.20***
-.25***
.02
.77***
-.18***
-.11***
.18***
.19***
-.29***
-.01
.45***
―
13. Humour
.09***
-.09***
.14***
.15***
-.03
-.02
.05*
.08**
-.05*
.08**
.30***
.13***
―
14. Acceptance
.17***
-.21***
.14***
.38***
-.18***
-.09***
.09***
.08**
-.19***
-.05*
.51***
.38***
.31***
―
.03
-.03
.12***
.08***
-.01
-.01
.30***
.17***
.01
.05*
.16***
.08**
.03
.10***
―
-.36***
.39***
.11***
-.23***
.24***
.20***
-.05*
-.01
.41***
.27***
-.25***
-.19***
.02
-.15**
.00
3. Selfdistraction
15. Religion 16. Self-blame
6
14
* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001 DGMPRA TM 2010-017
16
―
3.4
Postings and Time Away
Figure 1 shows time away of the military member for all military reasons in the previous 12 months. Approximately 40% of military personnel had been away for at least 5 months.
More than 8 months
10.7%
7-8 months
15.9%
13.9%
5-6 months
3-4 months
17.4%
1-2 months
37.4%
No time away
0%
4.6%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Figure 1: Time away for all Military Reasons in Past 12 Months As indicated in Table 7, over half of families had relocated 1 to 3 times due to military postings. When weighted data was considered, the percentage of individuals who had been posted once was several percentage points higher, while the percentage who had been posted four to six times was lower.
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
15
Table 7: Number of Postings Number of Postings None 1 2 3 4–6 7–9 10 or more Missing data
Frequency 332 466 377 245 388 98 44 134
Percentage 15.9% 22.4% 18.1% 11.8% 18.6% 4.7% 2.1% 6.4%
Weighted Percentage 16.8% 25.7% 19.2% 11.6% 14.9% 3.2% 1.4% 7.1%
Figure 2 presents the level of difficulty respondents had when they moved to a new location. Medical services was the most difficult factor for re-establishment, with almost 40% of respondents reporting that they found it “extremely difficult” to re-establish such services upon relocation. A substantial proportion also found it difficult to re-establish their seniority at work, their support network, their employment, and childcare. Medical services
38.9%
Your seniority at work
28.7% 27.6%
Your support network
25.5%
Your employment Childcare
21.3%
Your professional certification(s)
11.7%
Housing
8.4%
Your educational requirements
7.7%
Family routines
7.6%
Access to transport
7.0%
Access to services to support family needs
6.5% 4.6%
Schooling for children 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
% responded 'extremely difficult'
Figure 2: Difficulties with Reestablishment of Prior Activities when Relocated7
7
16
Selected for individuals who relocated due to a posting at least once (n = 1618). For the childcare and schooling for children question, also selected for individuals who had children living at home (n = 1133). DGMPRA TM 2010-017
3.5
Deployment Experiences
Overall time away for deployments in the previous 12 months is shown in Figure 3. Approximately two-thirds of military personnel had spent some amount of time away for a deployment in the past year.
More than 8 months
8.3%
7-8 months
19.5%
5-6 months
15.1%
3-4 months
16.4%
1-2 months
10.4%
No time away
30.3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Figure 3: Time away for Deployment in Previous 12 Months
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
17
The total overall number of deployments experienced by the military partner since the start of the relationship is shown in Figure 4. Approximately two-thirds of military personnel had experienced at least one deployment. As expected, number of deployments varied considerably by rank, such that Junior Officers were the least likely to have experienced any deployment, while Senior NCMs had the most deployment experience (data not shown).
More than 5
5
4
16.7%
4.4%
6.7%
3
10.8%
2
13.8%
1
17.4%
0 0%
30.2% 10%
20%
30%
40%
Figure 4: Total Number of Deployments
18
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
Respondents’ feelings across the deployment cycle are presented in Figure 5. The feelings most frequently endorsed by the spouses were of a positive nature, including feeling capable, confident, and in control. Conversely, negative feelings such as resentment, anger, and guilt were experienced less frequently. Across the stages of deployment, positive feelings of pride and being in control increased from the pre-deployment to the deployment and post-deployment phase, whereas negative feelings of sadness, frustration, anxiety, apprehension, resentment, anger, and guilt decreased during this time. Feelings across the deployment cycle are also presented for individuals who were out of the deployment cycle (i.e., their partner had returned from a deployment more than one year ago; Figure 6). Similar trends were found in this group, so that even those looking back on their partner’s deployment indicated greater positive feelings, and fewer negative feelings, from the pre- to the post-deployment stage. 76.3% 75.6% 75.8%
Capable
69.8% 69.6% 74.1%
Confident 55.2%
In control Sadness
63.1% 64.0%
57.1% 52.3%
10.3%
60.1%
Pride
67.0% 64.6%
Frustration
22.2%
Anxiety
37.2% 39.4% 45.6% 44.7%
12.9%
Apprehension
14.1%
Resentment
12.8%
Anger
12.8%
35.9% 30.9%
22.5% 19.7% 21.5% 20.2%
Pre-deployment Deployment
8.7% 10.9% 5.3%
Guilt 0%
20%
Post-deployment 40%
60%
80%
100%
Figure 5: Feelings Reported by Spouses throughout the Deployment Cycle8
8
Data indicates percentage reporting “often” or “always” experiencing the feelings in association with a deployment. Individuals who answered the questions on pre-deployment feelings were those whose CF partner was preparing for deployment, was currently deployed, or had recently returned from a deployment (n = 745). Individuals who answered the deployment questions were those whose CF partner was currently deployed or had recently returned (n = 639). Finally, the post-deployment questions were answered by those individuals whose CF partner had recently returned from a deployment (n = 384).
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
19
76.7% 74.7% 74.3% 70.3% 70.2% 73.6%
Capable Confident
58.8% 66.0% 65.3%
In control Sadness
51.0% 45.3%
7.4%
59.7% 64.7% 67.5%
Pride Frustration
17.9%
Anxiety
11.8%
Apprehension
14.1% 19.8% 18.5% 10.8% 16.7% 17.3% 10.4% 5.5% 6.4% 6.3%
Resentment Anger Guilt 0%
20%
31.4% 36.4% 39.6% 42.8% 30.2% 32.2%
Pre-deployment Deployment Post-deployment 40%
60%
80%
100%
Figure 6: Feelings Reported by Spouses throughout the Deployment Cycle: Respondents whose Military Partner returned at least one year ago (n = 567) Analyses of Variance (ANOVA) were run to determine whether psychological health differed throughout the deployment cycle. Depressive symptoms were highest for those respondents whose military partner was currently deployed (M = 1.96, SE = .05), compared to those in the pre- (M = 1.67, SE = .07) or post-deployment (M = 1.68, SE = .04) stage, F (2, 729) = 12.67, p < 001, n²p = .03. In contrast, there were no differences in psychological well-being (GHQ-2 scores) across the deployment cycle. Out of those individuals who reported that their military partner was currently deployed or had deployed at least once since they had been together (n = 1338), a pre-deployment screening was attended by 36.5% of the respondents, while 37.2% attended an information session prior to deployment. During the deployment, 49.6% of the respondents were contacted by MFRC during their partner’s absence, while 27.3% were contacted by a CF official. Almost all of the spouses (approximately 90%) felt that having frequent or regular contact with their military partner during deployment helped them cope with the separation. Almost half (46.8%) of the respondents reported using at least one CF/DND service during the deployment. As shown in Figure 7, the services most frequently used were the MFRC mail drop-off, the deployment information package, and websites.
20
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
MFRC mail drop-off
30.6%
Deployment Info Package
13.6%
Websites
11.9%
Mission Info Line
10.1%
Unit family briefings
9.6%
MFRC childcare services
8.7%
Spousal Support groups
6.2%
Drop-in centre at MFRC
5.2%
Deployment cycle w orkshops
3.0%
MFRC Resource Library
2.8%
Warm Line Telephone Support
2.5%
Computers at MFRC
2.0%
Deployment-related counselling
1.9%
Civilian services/resources
1.9%
CF Member Assistance Program
1.8%
Emergency childcare
1.6%
Prevention and intervention services
0.8%
Father's deployment support group
0.7%
Odd Job Registry
0.1%
Other
7.4% 0%
20%
40%
Figure 7: CF/DND Services used during Deployment9
9
Respondents were permitted to select multiple types of support. Percentages are out of total respondents who reported that their CF partner was deployed at least once while they were together (n = 1338).
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
21
For the remaining respondents who did not use CF/DND services during the deployment, most indicated that they had no need, while a smaller percentage reported a lack of awareness of available services or unavailability of the type of support they needed (Figure 8). Had no need
70.5%
Wasn't aware services available
12.3%
The type of support I required was not available
9.8%
I don't trust CF service providers
3.9%
Didn't want contact with the CF
1.9%
Fear of negative career repercussions from my spouse/partner
1.2%
My spouse/partner discouraged me from using them
0.5% 0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Figure 8: Reasons for not using CF/DND Services during Deployment10
10
22
Percentages are out of total respondents who reported that their CF partner was deployed at least once while they were together, and who answered “no” to having used any CF/DND service during the deployment (n = 697). DGMPRA TM 2010-017
Upon return of the military member, 12.4% reported that they attended an information session or debriefing. Only 5.5% reported using post-deployment services. Of these, the most commonly used services were CF social worker, CF individual counselling, and MFRC programs (Figure 9). However, it must be noted that since only a small percentage of individuals used post-deployment services, the percentages reflect a very low number of individuals, and caution should be taken in interpreting this data. Social w orker (CF)
1.7%
Individual counselling (CF counsellor)
1.2%
MFRC programs
1.0%
Social w orker (civilian)
0.7%
CF Member Assistance Program
0.7%
Individual counselling (civilian)
0.7%
OSISS Family Peer Support Coordinator
0.7%
Mess-affiliated support group
0.7%
Psychiatrist/psychologist (civilian)
0.6%
Spousal support group (MFRC)
0.4%
Clergy/padre (CF)
0.3%
Clergy (civilian)
0.3%
Psychiatrist/psychologist (CF)
0.1% 0%
1%
2%
3%
Figure 9: Post-Deployment Services Used11
11
Respondents were permitted to select multiple types of support. Percentages are out of total respondents who reported that their CF partner was deployed at least once while they were together (n = 1338).
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
23
Of those who did not use any services following the deployment, the majority felt that they had no need. As well, close to one-quarter of the respondents were not aware that services were available (Figure 10).
Had no need
67.8%
Wasn't aware services available
22.0%
The type of support I required was not available
3.4%
Fear of negative career repercussions from my spouse/partner
2.2%
I don't trust CF service providers
2.0%
Didn't want contact with the CF
1.7%
My spouse/partner discouraged me from using them
0.7% 0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Figure 10: Reasons for not using CF/DND Services after Deployment12
12
24
Percentages are out of total respondents who reported that their CF partner was deployed at least once while they were together, and who answered “no” to having used any CF/DND service following the deployment (n = 1022). DGMPRA TM 2010-017
Child behaviours during deployment are shown in Figure 11. Almost half of the respondents reported that their children became more clingy, while approximately one-third reported that their children exhibited behavioural changes such as young children sleeping with the parent, acting out, or anxiety. More clingy
46.0%
Young children sleeping with parent
33.5%
Anxiety
30.6%
Overall behaviour changes
28.4%
Acting out
25.6%
Unhappiness/sadness
24.1%
Fearfulness
19.6%
Increase in sibling rivalry
17.0%
Anger
15.9%
Aggression
13.7%
Decline in school performance
13.2%
Nightmares
10.4%
Emotional withdrawal
9.9%
Violence
4.4%
Distruptions in friendships
3.9% 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
13
Figure 11: Child Behaviours during Deployment
13
Percentages are out of total respondents who reported that their CF partner was deployed at least once while they were together, and who had children living at home (n = 934).
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
25
3.6
Health and Well-Being
Overall, 73.2% of spouses reported having a family doctor. Diagnoses with a psychological disorder for both the spouse and military member, as reported by the spouse, are shown in Figure 12. Approximately one-fifth of the respondents reported that they had been diagnosed with depression at some point in their military partner’s career in the CF, followed by 12% having been diagnosed with an anxiety disorder. For the military member, the most common diagnosis reported by the respondents was for depression as well, although the rate was considerably lower than that of the spouses. 18.7%
Depression
5.6% 11.7%
Anxiety disorder
3.4% 2.2% 4.0%
PTSD
2.0% 1.8%
Adjustment disorder Other stress-related physical or psychological problem
8.9%
0%
5%
Spouse Military member
5.0%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Figure 12: Respondents’ Reported Percentage of Spouses and Military Members Diagnosed with a Psychological Disorder Respondents were also asked how their military partner’s diagnosis with any of the above disorders affected them. Of the respondents who indicated that their partner had been diagnosed with a disorder, it was found that 12.4% were fearful of their partner and his/her behaviour, 21.2% were fearful of triggering symptoms in their partner, 27.8% feared breakdown of the relationship with their partner, and 21.3% were fearful of the breakdown of other relationships within the family14. Of those respondents whose military partner was currently deployed or had returned from a deployment within the past 6 months, 4.6% thought about taking their own life at some point during the deployment.
14
26
Based on responses of “often” or “always” to each of the items. Selected for respondents who indicated that their military partner had been diagnosed with at least one of the disorders listed (n = 277). DGMPRA TM 2010-017
Respondents were asked about their willingness to reveal personal problems. As shown in Figure 13, percentages indicate the extent to which respondents agreed or strongly agreed that it is not good to let others (i.e., military partner’s coworkers, other spouses of military members, military partner’s superiors at work, and CF service providers) know about personal or family problems because it may negatively impact the CF member’s career. It was found that spouses were most reluctant to talk to the military member’s coworkers, and were much more likely to be willing to reveal personal problems to CF service providers.
Military partner's coworkers
57.3%
Other spouses/partners of military members
51.3%
Military partner's superior(s) at work
48.6%
CF service providers
18.6%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Figure 13: Willingness to Reveal Personal Problems15
15
Percentages indicate the proportion of spouses who indicated that they ‘Agree’ or ‘Strongly Agree’ that it is not good to let others know about their personal problems. DGMPRA TM 2010-017
27
3.7
Relationship
H o w su ppo rtive are yo u to w ard...
Overall, respondents were very supportive of their military partner’s CF service, as indicated in Figure 14. In addition, approximately one-third of respondents were very supportive of their military partner being deployed. Spouse/partner's current service in the CF
82.1%
Spouse/partner pursuing a long-term career in the CF
73.1%
Spouse/partner deploying 6 months from now or later
33.7%
Spouse/partner deploying w ithin the next 6 months 0%
31.7%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Figure 14: Support for Military Service16 Of those respondents whose military partner was currently deployed or had returned from a deployment within the past 6 months, 18% had thought about ending the relationship with him/her at some point during the deployment.
16
28
Percentage of spouses who responded “very supportive.” DGMPRA TM 2010-017
Has your spouse/partner been violent or abusive toward...
Figure 15 shows the percentage of respondents reporting domestic violence. Approximately 5% of respondents reported that their military partner had been violent toward them, while 3.5% reported violence toward children. 7.8%
Household property You
5.1%
Children in your family
3.5%
Family pets
3.1%
Your personal posessions
3.0%
Personal possessions of others
1.2%
Older adults in your family 0%
0.8% 2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
Figure 15: Domestic Violence
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
29
3.8
Views on Policies
As shown in Figure 16, most respondents preferred that deployments remain at a length of six months if there is a Home Leave Travel Allowance (HLTA). In the absence of HLTA, the greatest preference was for three months, followed closely by four months.
Preferred number of Months
1 to 2
1.6% 10.4%
HLTA No HLTA
3.6%
3
36.0%
8.7%
4
27.9%
3.9% 3.6%
5 6
21.0%
7 to 8
0.4%
More than 8
0.7% 0%
55.0%
13.6% 13.5%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Figure 16: Spouses’ Views on Maximum Length of Deployment
30
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
Similar to time away for deployment, most spouses preferred that total time away in a 12-month period be no more than six months, as indicated in Figure 17. There was no clear preference for any other amount of time away.
Preferred number of Months
1 to 2
18.2%
3
13.4%
4
10.8%
5
3.1%
6
37.0%
7 to 8
10.8%
More than 8
6.7% 0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Figure 17: Spouses’ Views on Maximum Time away in any 12-month Period for all Military Reasons
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
31
Preferred number of deployments
Finally, just over half of the respondents felt that military personnel should have no more than one six-month deployment in any three-year period, as shown in Figure 18. This was followed by two total deployments, for which approximately 40% of the respondents reported a preference.
0
0.7%
1
53.6%
2
39.8%
3
More than 3
5.2%
0.7%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Figure 18: Spouses’ Views on Maximum Number of Deployments in any 3-Year Period
32
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
4 4.1
Discussion Overview of Findings
Studying military life from the perspective of spouses of CF members is crucial, since family life can have an important impact on the well-being of members (e.g., in terms of psychological well-being) as well as the organization as a whole (e.g., retention) (Dursun, 2006; McCreary, Thompson, & Pasto, 2003; Orthner, 1990). The aim of this report was to provide descriptive information on the impacts of military life on families, from the perspective of the spouses and common-law partners of CF members. Descriptive data on time away, postings, and deployment experiences were reported. Approximately 40% of military personnel had been away for at least five months in the past year for all military-related reasons, while approximately two-thirds had spent some time away for deployment. Over half of families had relocated one to three times due to military postings. In terms of their views on policies, most respondents preferred that deployments remain at a length of six months with HLTA. This is in line with the findings from the 2005 survey of spouses, and also corresponds to the preferences of CF personnel themselves (Norris, Noonan, & Garabedian, 2007; Peddie & Koundakjian, 2009). Similar to time away for deployment, most spouses preferred that total time away in a 12-month period be no more than six months. Finally, over half of the respondents reported that military personnel should have no more than one six-month deployment in any three-year period. Across the stages of deployment, respondents’ positive feelings of pride and being in control increased from the pre-deployment to the deployment and post-deployment phase, whereas negative feelings such as sadness, frustration, and anxiety decreased during this time. This trend was found even among those who were out of the deployment cycle (i.e., whose military partner had returned from deployment more than one year ago). Although some researchers have pointed out that the post-deployment period may represent a “honeymoon” phase which can be followed by disappointment when it is realized that things may not be the same as before the deployment (Robertson, 2008), the results of the present study suggest that the increased well-being in the post-deployment period may have continued past the initial reintegration period. Although reintegration of the military member after a deployment may be stressful for families, it appears from this limited information that spouses are able to adapt well to this period in the deployment cycle. Previous research has documented the adverse effects of deployments on spouses of military personnel, including marital dissatisfaction, unemployment, divorce, and lower emotional health (Angrist & Johnson, 2000; Schumm, Bell, & Gade, 2000). As well, prolonged deployment was associated with increased risk of depression, anxiety, sleep disorders, acute stress reaction, and adjustment disorders among wives of military personnel (Mansfield, Kaufman, Marshall et al., 2010). In the present study, scores on psychological well-being did not differ across the deployment cycle. Furthermore, although depressive symptoms were significantly higher during deployment compared to the pre- and post-deployment stages, the effect size was low, indicating that mental health symptoms were largely independent of deployment status, or that other factors not considered (e.g., presence of children at home, being posted in a location away from extended family) may have played a role in the impacts of deployment on mental health. Indeed, the previous survey of CF spouses found an interactive effect such that that
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
33
in the post-deployment phase, spouses with children reported lower life satisfaction that spouses without children (Dursun & Sudom, 2009). Similar to the 2005 survey, almost half of the respondents reported using at least one CF/DND service during deployment. Of those who did not use any services, most reported that they had no need, while a smaller percentage reported that they were not aware of services or that the type of service they needed was not available. In contrast to the use of services during deployment, only 5% of the respondents used post-deployment CF/DND services, the same rate as reported in the 2005 survey. Of the 95% of respondents who did not use any services, almost one-quarter were not aware that services were available.17 The low usage of services is important to note since approximately 5% of the respondents reported thoughts of taking their own life during the deployment of their partner, and one-fifth reported that they thought about ending their relationship with their partner during this time. Alternatively, the low use of services may indicate that spouses prefer to use informal sources of support, such as friends and family, rather than formal programs and services. Indeed, previous research has found that wives of military personnel were more likely to ask for help from their family, other military personnel, and work colleagues, compared to formal military sources (Dandeker, French, Birtles, & Wessely, 2006). Regardless, over one-tenth of spouses in the deployment phase, and one-fifth of spouses in the post-deployment phase, reported not using post-deployment services due to lack of awareness, which may indicate that available services should be more widely publicized. It is also notable that of the spouses who did access services during deployment, many were practical services intended to help spouses with their day-to-day affairs, such as the MFRC mail drop-off or deployment information package, while fewer respondents used support services such as deployment counselling or support groups. It is significant that the leading reason for not seeking care was no perceived need, a positive finding which indicates that many spouses are capable of coping with the stressors associated with deployment. Approximately 80% of the respondents had experienced at least one service-related move of residence. For those who had experienced a relocation, medical services was the most difficult factor to re-establish in the new location, while a substantial proportion also found it difficult to re-establish their seniority at work, their support network, their employment, and childcare. In the current survey, 73% of spouses had a family doctor, down slightly from the 2005 survey, at which time 77% of spouses reported having a doctor. Approximately one-fifth of the respondents reported that they had been diagnosed with depression at some point in their military partner’s career in the CF, a similar rate to that reported in the 2005 survey. For the military member, the most common diagnosis, as reported by the respondents, was for depression as well, although the rate was considerably lower than that of the spouses. Estimates of depression in the general population vary depending on the method used to measure the disorder and whether current or lifetime rates are being assessed, and as such are not appropriate for comparison purposes. Symptoms of depression and lower well-being were associated with conflict between military and family life, lower self-efficacy, lower levels of perceived social support, and use of emotionallyfocused and avoidant coping strategies.
17
34
Reasons for not using services are not directly comparable across the 2005 and 2008 versions of the survey, since in 2008 the option of “the type of support I required was not available” was added.
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
Following depression, the most prevalent disorders reported both for spouses and military members were anxiety disorder and PTSD. Although PTSD is considered an anxiety disorder (APA, 1994), it was given as a separate option in this survey since PTSD is of particular concern for military populations. In the survey, it was reported that 4% of military personnel had been diagnosed with PTSD, while 2.2% of spouses reported having received this diagnosis. The survey did not examine the precipitating event(s) that led to PTSD, so the diagnosis could have been related to military service or to some other traumatic event. As well, it is possible that some respondents may have confused a diagnosis of PTSD with their spouse having an operational stress injury (OSI), for which PTSD is only one resulting condition. OSIs also include other diagnosed medical conditions such as anxiety and depression. For spouses, it is possible that posttraumatic stress symptoms resulted from experiences such as a vehicle accident or early experiences of abuse. As in the case of depression, it is not possible to compare percentages with population data due to differences in the methodological approaches used. It is recommended in future surveys of spouses to utilize questions on mental health from existing large-scale surveys such as the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS), in order to facilitate comparisons of CF personnel and spouses with the general population. Furthermore, although the purpose of this report was to provide descriptive information, it is recommended that further analyses examine the relationship of mental health symptoms of spouses and CF personnel with factors such as frequency of deployments and postings. Overall, respondents were very supportive of their military partner’s current CF service, in line with the findings from the 2005 survey. Compared to 2005, slightly lower rates of support were found for military partner’s long-term career in the CF (73% in 2008 versus 77% in 2005); deployment in the next six months (32% in 2008 versus 35% in 2005) and deployment six months from now or later (34% in 2008 versus 37% in 2005). Finally, approximately 5% of respondents indicated that their CF partner had been violent toward them. The findings have previously been reported and compared to those of the 2005 survey (Sudom, 2009). Although the responses provide some detail on the prevalence of violence experienced, it is not possible to determine the types of violence experienced (i.e., physical, verbal, emotional), as no differentiation was made. It is recommended that future surveys of spouses examine the types of violence experienced, as well as the factors associated with violence, in order to expand DND/CF’s knowledge of this issue.
4.2
Limitations
There are a number of limitations to this study. It is possible that some spouses of military personnel may have self-selected into the study. That is, some respondents who chose to complete the survey may have done so due to their experiences (either positive or negative) with the CF. The relatively low response rate in this study does indicate that caution should be taken in interpreting potentially biased results. However, it is not possible to determine the extent to which this may have been the case in this study, or what the impacts of such bias may be. For example, if a disproportionate number of individuals with negative experiences responded to the study, higher rates of depression or anxiety disorder may have been found in comparison to the general population of spouses. The demographic characteristics of the sample (e.g., rank and environment of military partner) did not differ greatly from that of the married/common law population, and weighting the data in favour of the population characteristics did not result in differences in the results. Therefore, although it is possible that some individuals may have
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
35
taken particular interest in the study due to their experiences, the sample was similar in its demographic composition to the population, although it is still recognized that the low response rate may have driven a bias in results, rather than the demographic composition of the sample. In particular, the percentage of individuals who reported that their partner was currently deployed was higher than that of the married/common law population. This indicates that the findings may be biased toward a high perstempo group, which could inflate the apparent negative effects of military service on spouses compared to the population as a whole. However, despite this potential bias, many spouses reported good overall well-being and positive experiences throughout the deployment cycle. A further bias may have occurred due to the number of surveys that were returned due to incorrect address. Because of this, the study may have missed some families that were in transition (e.g., had recently been posted to a new location but their address had not yet been updated in their personnel records). Finally, the marital data obtained from HRMS may not have been accurate in some cases, in that individuals who had recently married or become common law, or who had recently separated, would not be accurately reflected in the sample. For some of the respondents, there were missing data. It is not clear at some points whether this was intentional (e.g., if a respondent had never experienced a deployment, then some questions should have purposely been left out because they were not applicable). This will be remedied if future iterations of the survey are administered in electronic, rather than paper-and-pencil, format. This method of administration will eliminate much of the uncertainty associated with missing responses since appropriate skip patterns can be implemented into the survey (e.g., if an individual had never experienced deployment, then the survey would automatically skip all deployment-related questions so that the respondent only answers relevant items). It is recommended that in the future, surveys be mailed in paper format with a link to an electronic version, such that respondents can choose to complete the survey by either method, which may increase the rate of response. The survey included only the spouses and common-law partners of Regular Force members, so the results cannot be generalized to the population of families of reservists. It is possible that families of reservists face unique challenges that are not captured in the present study, and it would be of benefit for future research to include reserve families. As well, the experiences of single-parent families, wherein the CF member is raising children on his or her own, cannot be determined from this study. Again, children of single-parent families where the primary caretaker is a military member who may be frequently posted and/or deployed may experience challenges that children from dual-parent households do not typically experience. Finally, although the results are presented overall, regardless of the military status of the respondent, it will be of interest in future analyses of the data to look specifically at the experiences of dual-service couples, in which the respondent is also a member of the CF. It is important to note that due to the cross-sectional nature of the survey, it is not possible to determine cause-and-effect relationships from the data. Although responses were gathered from a large number of individuals across all stages of the deployment cycle, future research may benefit from the use of a longitudinal design, which would assess individuals throughout the cycle of deployment, examining difficulties experienced by spouses of military personnel and their children as they cope with the demands of deployment and the military lifestyle in general.
36
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
The survey was not intended to be used for particular groups, such as spouses whose military partner is on imposed restriction or spouses living on or near a specific base. As well, due to the space limitations of the survey, further detail on certain topics could not be gathered, although they may have been important to assess. For example, although spouses were asked to report the CF/DND programs and services that they used throughout the deployment cycle, which gives an indication of the rate of usage, the survey did not assess such aspects as usefulness of or satisfaction with the services used. In addition, the survey did not inquire about programs and services used in the pre-deployment period, although this may be a time of considerable stress as families are preparing for the military member to leave. Indeed, the respondents’ reported positive feelings (pride, being in control) were lowest in the pre-deployment phase, while negative feelings such as sadness and anxiety were highest at this time, indicating that this may be a particularly stressful period. Although this data is cross-sectional and cannot be linked to pre-existing baseline levels of emotions, it is notable that well-being was favourable in the post-deployment phase, in comparison to pre- or during deployment, and as such, the pre-deployment period may represent an important area for family programs and services to focus. Finally, the study did not examine the potential positive effects of military service. Although individual resilience has been studied in terms of the resources that enable adaptation to the adverse impacts of stress, less research has been conducted on resilience of families, particularly families that are exposed to unique stressors such as those associated with military life. It has been suggested that although military separations are challenging for families, they can also serve to strengthen families by increasing their resiliency (Wiens & Boss, 2006). Identifying the protective factors which enable families to maintain well-being despite stressors such as the deployment of a spouse, will provide the CF with information about ways to increase resiliency (e.g., by way of family-related programs and policies). Protective factors may include flexible gender roles, active coping strategies, and community and social supports (Wiens & Boss, 2006). It must be recognized that the effects of experiences such as deployments and postings are not entirely negative. Deployments may involve a sense of pride in the military spouse for having completed meaningful work, while postings may provide opportunities for families to travel and have new experiences that they would not have been able to do otherwise. It would be beneficial for future research with CF spouses to include measures of the positive impacts of military service, and link these with protective factors such as those mentioned, in order to be better able to focus on the variables associated with positive adaptation to stressors.
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
37
5
Conclusion
The effects of military life on families will become more evident as military personnel continue to be deployed to high intensity areas such as Afghanistan. Although military life presents unique stressors to families, including frequent relocations, temporary housing, spousal unemployment and underemployment, separations, and deployments, it is evident that spousal support is a critical variable impacting not only the well-being of serving members but also the organization as a whole. Therefore, it is important to understand how families adapt to the demands of military life. This report provided the top line results of responses to a survey of spouses/partners of CF members. It is recommended that further examination of this data focus on specific aspects of the survey, such as potential buffering factors that confer family resilience to deployment related stressors (e.g., coping strategies and social support). Such variables may represent potential areas where the CF could focus intervention efforts. For example, if it is known that certain coping strategies protect spouses from the negative impacts of deployment stress on well-being, then efforts can be made to enhance effective coping strategies of spouses and couples. In addition to such interventions at the individual- or couple-level, organizational support in the form of military leadership training to understand the interrelationships between work and family issues may aid in leadership support for families and in increasing spouses’ perceptions of support from the military organization. The survey also indicated that spouses’ preferences for personnel tempo are in line with those that are currently used in the CF. The current CF perstempo policy states that with certain exceptions, the normal tour length for deployed units should be six to nine months, with a mid-tour home leave when possible. In the study, a clear preference was found for six month deployments with a mid-tour leave. In terms of deployment frequency, CF members are normally required to deploy no more than once in a three-year cycle. Similarly, spouses’ highest preference was for one tour in any three-year period. These findings indicate that any changes to perstempo policy, such that personnel are deployed more frequently or for longer periods of time, are likely to be dissatisfiers for CF families. The military can have a pervasive influence on family life, and conversely, the family can have an impact on the serving member as well as on the military organization as a whole. Families of military personnel provide support to members’ well-being, readiness, performance, and ability to carry out missions, and it is therefore important to understand how families can adapt to the demands of military life. The results of this survey will enhance understanding of the impacts of military service on the well-being families of CF personnel.
38
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
References ..... [1] American Psychiatric Association (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (fourth edition). Washington, DC: Author. [2] Angrist, J.D., Johnson, J. H. (2000). Effects of work-related absences on families: evidence from the Gulf War. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 54, 41-58. [3] Banks, M.H., Clegg, C.W., Jackson, P.R., Kemp, N.J., Stafford, E.M., & Wall, T.D. (1980). The use of the General Health Questionnaire as an indicator of mental health in occupational studies. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 53, 187-194. [4] Canadian Forces Personnel Support Agency – Support to Civilians Policy. Retrieved 19 January, 2010 from: http://www.cfpsa.com/en/psp/dmfs/resources/policies_e.asp. [5] Carver, C. S. (1997). You want to measure coping but your protocol’s too long: consider the Brief COPE. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 4, 92-100. [6] Carver, C.S., Scheier, M.F., & Weintraub, J.K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: a theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 267-283. [7] Dandeker, C., French, C., Birtles, C., & Wessely, S. (2006). Deployment experiences of British Army wives before, during and after deployment: Satisfaction with military life and use of support networks. In Human Dimensions in Military Operations – Military Leaders’ Strategies for Addressing Stress and Psychological Support (pp. 38-1 – 38-20). Meeting Proceedings RTO-MP-HFM-134, Paper 38. Neuilly-sur-Seine, France: RTO. [8] Dursun, S. (2006). Results of the 2005 spouse Perstempo survey. Presentation to the Military Family National Advisory Board. [9] Dursun, S., & Sudom, K. (2009). Impacts of military life on families: results from the Perstempo survey of Canadian Forces spouses. DGMPRA Technical Report 2009-001. Director General Military Personnel Research and Analysis, Department of National Defence, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. [10] Garson, G.D. Reliability analysis. In Statnotes: topics in multivariate analysis. Retrieved August 10, 2009 from: www2.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/pa765/statnote.htm. [11] Kahl, J.A. (1965). Some measurement of achievement orientation. American Journal of Sociology, 70, 669-681. [12] Kahl, J.A. (1968). The measurement of modernism: A study of values in Brazil and Mexico. Austin: University of Texas Press.
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
39
[13] Mansfield, A.J., Kaufman, J.S., Marshall, S.W., Gaynes, B.N., Morrissey, J.P., & Engel, C.C. (2010). Deployment and the use of mental health services among U.S. Army wives. New England Journal of Medicine, 362, 101-109. [14] McCreary, D.R., Thompson, M.M., & Pasto, L. (2003). Predeployment family concerns and soldier well-being: The impact of family concerns on the predeployment well-being of Canadian Forces personnel. The Canadian Journal of Police and Security Services, 1, 33-40. [15] Netemeyer, R.G., Boles, J.S., & McMurrian, R. (1996). Development and validation of work-family conflict and family-work conflict scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 400-410. [16] Norris, M.E., Noonan, L.E., & Garabedian, K. (2007). Preliminary results of length of tour study. Director Personnel Applied Research Sponsor Research Report 2007-02. National Defence Headquarters, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. [17] Nunally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory (Second Edition). New York: McGraw Hill. [18] Offord, D.R., Boyle, M.H., Campbell, D., Goering, P., Lin, E., Wong, M., & Racine, Y. A. (1996). One-year prevalence of anxiety disorder in Ontarians 15 to 64 years of age. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 41, 559-564. [19] Orthner, D.K. (1990). Family impacts on the retention of military personnel. Paper presented at the Military Family Research Review Conference. Washington, D.C. [20] Patten, S.B. (2003). Recall bias and major depression lifetime prevalence. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 38, 290-296. [21] Peddie, S., & Koundakjian, K. (2009). The ideal length of tour: perceptions of Canadian Forces members returning from deployment. DGMPRA Technical Memorandum 2009-007. Director General Military Personnel Research and Analysis, Department of National Defence, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. [22] Radloff, L.S. (1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385-401. [23] Robertson, R. (2008). Understanding the cycle of military deployment: How it affects young children and families. Exchange: The Early Childhood Leaders' Magazine, 180, 24-26. [24] Rosen, L.N., & Moghadam, L.Z. (1990). Matching the support to the stressor: implications for the buffering hypothesis. Military Psychology, 2, 193-204. [25] Schumm, W.R., Bell, D.B., & Gade, P.A. (2000). Effects of a military overseas peacekeeping deployment on marital quality, satisfaction, and stability. Psychological Reports, 87, 815-821.
40
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
[26] Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized self-efficacy scale. In J. Weinman, S. Wright, & M. Johnston (Eds.), Measures in health psychology: A user’s portfolio. Causal and control beliefs (pp. 35-37). Windsor, England: NFER-NELSON. [27] Spanier, G.B., & Filsinger, E.E. (1983). The Dyadic Adjustment Scale. In Filsinger, E.E. (Ed.). Marriage and family assessment: A sourcebook for family therapy (pp. 155-168). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. [28] Sudom, K. (2009). Family violence in the Canadian Forces. DGMPRA Technical Note 2009-020. Director General Military Personnel Research and Analysis, Department of National Defence, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. [29] Thompson, M.M., & Pasto, L. (2001). Psychometric assessment and refinement of the Family Issues scale of the Human Dimensions of Operations (HDO) project. Defence and Civil Institute of Environmental Medicine TR 2001-049. [30] Wiens, W.T., & Boss, P. (2006). Maintaining family resiliency before, during, and after military separation. In C.A. Castro, A.B. Adler, & T.W. Britt (Eds.), Military life: the psychology of serving in peace and combat. Vol. 3 The military family (pp. 13-38). Westoport, Connecticut: Praeger Security International.
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
41
This page intentionally left blank.
42
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
Annex A
Quality of Life among Military Families: A Survey of Spouses and Partners of Canadian Forces Members Survey
INSTRUCTIONS: Please answer the questionnaire fully and honestly. It will take approximately one hour to complete. The confidentiality of your responses is guaranteed. Help us contribute to the health and effectiveness of our people and the organization.
WHEN YOU’RE FINISHED: Seal the questionnaire in the enclosed envelope and place it in any mailbox. Thank you for your assistance.
O
O
Please use a pencil or pen to complete the survey and write firmly and clearly. DO NOT use a marker of any kind. Thank You.
Conducted by: Directorate of Military Personnel Operational Research and Analysis National Defence Headquarters MGen George R. Pearkes Building 101 Colonel By Drive Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0K2
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
43
AIM: As you are aware, military duty often involves the separation of members from their families, as well as frequent moves that involve adaptation to a new location. While this is a necessary part of military life, we understand that this can have a significant impact on the families of military members. The attached survey will be an important source of information about the experiences and attitudes of Canadian Forces families in relation to the demands of military service, including deployments and postings, as well as employment of spouses/partners of CF members. The information that you provide will be used to inform policies, programs, and service to support our families when military members are away from home, and will enable us to understand the impact of military service on family members’ quality of life. We hope that you will see this survey as an opportunity to communicate your views. Please complete the questionnaire and place it in any mailbox using the enclosed envelope.
PARTICIPATION: Participation in this study is voluntary. However, maximum participation is crucial in order for us to obtain an accurate picture of the impacts of military life on families. Should you decide to participate, please complete all sections of this survey fully and honestly.
CONFIDENTIALITY: The responses that you provide will remain confidential. We do not ask for any identifying information, and there is no possibility that the completed survey will be linked to you or your military spouse. Under the Access to Information Act, Canadian citizens are entitled to obtain copies of reports and data held in federal government files – this includes information from this survey. Similarly, under the Privacy Act, Canadian citizens are entitled to copies of all information concerning them that is held in federal government files. However, prior to releasing the requested information, the Director of Access to Information and Privacy (DAIP) screens the data to ensure that individual identities are not disclosed. The results from this survey administration will only be released in combined form to ensure that the anonymity of all participants is protected. In other words, your individual responses will not be released, and you will not be identified in any way.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding this project, please contact Dr. Kerry Sudom (
[email protected]; 613-995-0706).
Thank you for your valuable contribution to our study
44
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
Section A: You and Your Military Spouse/Partner This section tells us about you and your military spouse/partner. Responses will be grouped to help us understand how views are different across the CF – under no circumstances will this information be used to identify you or your spouse/partner.
YOU AND YOUR BACKGROUND 1.
2.
What is your sex? O
Male
O
Female
How old are you?
years 3.
4.
5.
What is the highest level of education you have completed? O
Less than high school
O
Some university
O
High school
O
University degree
O
High school diploma
O
Some graduate school
O
Some college or CEGEP
O
Graduate degree
O
College or CEGEP diploma
What is your first Official Language? O
English
O
French
In your current location, how comfortable are you in communicating in the language most commonly spoken in the community? O
Very comfortable
O
Somewhat comfortable
O
Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable
O
Somewhat uncomfortable
O
Very uncomfortable
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
45
6.
7.
Are you currently working in your first Official Language? O
Yes
O
No
O
N/A – not currently employed
Are you currently a member of the CF? O
No
O
Yes, in the Reserve Force (Class A)
O
Yes, in the Reserve Force (Class B)
O
Yes, in the Reserve Force (Class C)
O
Yes, in the Regular Force
If you are a member of the CF: We understand that you have your own unique experiences in your military career. However, we would ask that you think about your spouse/partner’s military career when answering the questions on the survey.
8.
9.
Are you a former member of the CF? O
Yes
O
No
Please estimate your total household income from all sources in the last 12 months.
$ 10.
Please estimate your total individual income from all sources in the last 12 months.
$ 11.
46
Do you feel you are: O
Living comfortably on present household income
O
Coping on present income
O
Finding it difficult to cope on present household income
O
Finding it very difficult to cope on present household income
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
12.
In what type of dwelling do you live? O
Married Quarters (PMQs)
O
Rented civilian property
O
Owned civilian property
O
Other: please specify ____________________________
YOUR WORK EXPERIENCES
13.
14.
15.
What is your current employment status? (Select the one that best describes your situation) O
Employed full-time
O
Unemployed, seeking employment
O
Employed part-time
O
Unemployed, not looking for work
O
Seasonal (full-time)
O
Student
O
Seasonal (part-time)
O
Homemaker
O
Self-employed
O
Other – unemployed (please specify): _________________________________
O
Working in family business
O
Other – employed (please specify): ________________________________
Are you employed by the CF/DND or working on a military base? O
Yes
O
No
How satisfied are you with the employment opportunities in the city/town you currently reside in? O
Very satisfied
O
Somewhat satisfied
O
Neither satisfied nor unsatisfied
O
Somewhat unsatisfied
O
Very unsatisfied
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
47
16.
17.
18.
If you are employed, which of the following best describes your work? O
Self-Employed
O
Technical
O
Small Business Owner
O
Administrative/Clerical
O
Manager
O
Labourer
O
Professional
O
Retail
O
Scientific
O
Hospitality
O
Working in family business
O
Other (please specify): _____________________
If you are employed, to what extent does your current job fit your educational and prior employment background? O
Not at all
O
Somewhat
O
Very much so
If you are employed, to what extent do you agree with each of the following? (Please respond to all items.)
1. My organization is a good place to work. 2. I am satisfied with my current job. 3. I am satisfied with my career. 4. I am strongly committed to making my organization successful.
19.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.
48
Strongly disagree O
Mostly disagree O
Mostly agree O
Strongly agree O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O
O
O
O
If you are employed, what is your motivation for working? (Please respond to all items.)
To pay bills, cover expenses For extra spending money/long-term savings To avoid boredom To keep busy For personal fulfilment For independence To maintain skills and career status To obtain a return on education To make a contribution to society To interact with peers To pursue personal objectives Other (please specify) __________________
Not at all O O O O O O O O O O O O
Somewhat O O O O O O O O O O O O
Very much so O O O O O O O O O O O O
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
Slight influence
Moderate influence
Considerable influence
Very considerable influence
Not applicable
If you are NOT currently employed, to what extent does each of the following contribute to your reasons for not working? (Please respond to all items. If a statement does not apply to you, please mark “not applicable”.) No influence
20.
1.
Not interested in working
O
O
O
O
O
O
2.
No work available in line of work or area
O
O
O
O
O
O
3.
Made a personal choice to stay at home to raise children
O
O
O
O
O
O
4.
Unable to find employment
O
O
O
O
O
O
5.
Unable due to difficulties transferring professional credential(s) to a new location Lack necessary schooling, training, skills or experience
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
6. 7.
Unable due to childcare responsibilities
O
O
O
O
O
O
8.
Unable due to family responsibilities other than childcare
O
O
O
O
O
O
9.
In school or other training
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
12. Difficulties due to the job search process
O
O
O
O
O
O
13. Illness or physical disability
O
O
O
O
O
O
14. Mental health
O
O
O
O
O
O
15. Parental/maternity leave
O
O
O
O
O
O
16. Prefer to volunteer my time
O
O
O
O
O
O
17. Unable due to work commitments of my CF spouse/partner
O
O
O
O
O
O
18. Unable due to language requirements
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
21. Retired
O
O
O
O
O
O
22. Other ________________________________
O
O
O
O
O
O
10. Completing move; settling into new location as a result of a posting 11. Anticipating a posting; did not want to commit to new job
19. Reluctance of employers to hire spouses/partners of CF members 20. Currently on a leave of absence from work as a result of spouse/partner’s career
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
49
21.
Regardless of whether you are employed or not, please indicate to what extent you agree with each of the following:
1. My current employment status makes me feel resentment towards my spouse/partner 2. My current employment status makes me feel resentment towards the CF 3. I have a lack of support in my employment pursuits from my CF spouse/partner due to his/her work commitments
22.
Not at all
Somewhat
Very much so
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Which of the following best describes your employment experience during your relationship with your military spouse or partner? O
My spouse/partner’s military career has had a positive impact on my employment or career
O
My employment or career has not been affected by my spouse/partner’s military career
O
I have made some employment or career sacrifices because of my spouse/partner’s military career
O
I am “under-employed” or am over-qualified for the work I am doing because of my spouse/partner’s military career
O
I am unemployed or my career has been severely affected by the demands of my spouse/partner’s military career
O
N/A – I have not sought employment since being with my military spouse/partner
YOUR MILITARY SPOUSE/PARTNER 23.
How long has your spouse or partner served in the CF (round up to the nearest year)? years
24.
50
What is the current military employment status of your spouse or partner? O
Reserve Force (Class A)
O
Reserve Force (Class B)
O
Reserve Force (Class C)
O
Regular Force
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
25.
O
What is your military spouse/partner’s rank?
Junior NCM: Private Ordinary Seaman Able Seaman
O
Senior NCM: Sergeant Petty Officer 2nd class
O
Junior Officer: Officer Cadet Naval Cadet
O
Senior Officer: Major Lieutenant-Commander
O
Corporal Leading Seaman
O
Warrant Officer Petty Officer 1st class
O
Second Lieutenant Acting Sub-Lieutenant
O
Lieutenant-Colonel Commander
O
Master Corporal Master Seaman
O
Master Warrant Officer Chief Petty Officer 2nd class
O
Lieutenant Sub-Lieutenant
O
Colonel Captain (N) and above
O
Chief Warrant Officer Chief Petty Officer 1st class
O
Captain Lieutenant (N)
26.
What is your military spouse/partner’s job in the CF (what is his or her Military Occupation Structure Identification Code or MOSID, or simply describe his or her work):
________________________________________________________________
27.
28.
Which environmental uniform does your spouse/partner wear today? O
Sea
O
Land
O
Air
Where is your spouse/partner currently posted, and where do you live? Please fill in both spaces below, even if you are in the same location. Under no circumstances will this information be used to identify you or your military spouse/partner. It will be used solely to gather economic information on your region. a. Location of your spouse/partner’s posting: _________________________________ b. Where do you live (city/town): ___________________________________________ c.
What is your residential postal code? ______________________________________
d. If applicable, in what city or closest town are you employed? ___________________
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
51
29.
O
Yes
O
No
Slight influence
Moderate influence
Considerable influence
Very considerable influence
Not applicable
If yes, to what extent does each of the following explain why your spouse/partner is on IR? (Please respond to all items.) No influence
30.
Is your military spouse or partner currently on Imposed Restriction (IR – he or she takes a posting to another location, and you and your family remain in your current location)?
1. Stability in family life
O
O
O
O
O
O
2. Children’s education
O
O
O
O
O
O
3. Your own education
O
O
O
O
O
O
4. Your employment
O
O
O
O
O
O
5. Family responsibilities (e.g., aging parent)
O
O
O
O
O
O
6. Marriage/relationship difficulties
O
O
O
O
O
O
7. Child(ren) with special needs
O
O
O
O
O
O
8. You are not interested in moving
O
O
O
O
O
O
9. Other (please specify): ________________
O
O
O
O
O
O
31.
52
If your spouse/partner is or was recently on IR, how satisfied were you with the financial and other incentives of IR policy? O
Very satisfied
O
Somewhat satisfied
O
Neither satisfied or unsatisfied
O
Somewhat unsatisfied
O
Very unsatisfied
O
Not familiar with IR policies
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
32.
If you were not satisfied with the financial and other incentives of IR policy, please explain in the space below.
33.
Based on your understanding, what are your spouse/partner’s intentions in regards to staying in the CF? O
He/she will definitely stay until retirement
O
He/she will probably stay until retirement
O
He/she intends to stay until 20/25 years of service are up
O
He/she will definitely stay in beyond the present term of service, but not necessarily until retirement
O
He/she is undecided about whether to stay after completion of the current term of service
O
He/she will probably leave upon completion of the current term of service
O
He/she intends to get out of the CF as soon as possible
O
I am not sure of my spouse/partner’s intentions
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
53
Moderate influence
Considerable influence
1. A lack of work-family balance
O
O
O
O
O
O
2. A desire to stay in one place
O
O
O
O
O
O
3. Lack of options for flexible work practices and career breaks
O
O
O
O
O
O
4. Lack of family support services
O
O
O
O
O
O
5. Dissatisfaction with relocation services
O
O
O
O
O
O
6. Lack of suitable childcare services
O
O
O
O
O
O
7. Family isolation/lack of social support
O
O
O
O
O
O
8. Dissatisfaction with CF housing services
O
O
O
O
O
O
9. Complications resulting from being a dual-service couple
O
O
O
O
O
O
10. Lack of educational opportunities for myself
O
O
O
O
O
O
11. Lack of career opportunities for myself
O
O
O
O
O
O
12. Family responsibilities (e.g., caring for aging parent)
O
O
O
O
O
O
13. Retirement
O
O
O
O
O
O
14. My spouse/partner’s physical/psychological well-being
O
O
O
O
O
O
15. My preference that he/she leaves the CF
O
O
O
O
O
O
16. My job/career
O
O
O
O
O
O
Very considerable influence Not applicable
Slight influence
If your spouse/partner intends to leave the CF within the next 3 years, in your opinion, to what extent have the following factors influenced his/her decision? (Please respond to all items.) No influence
34.
O
17. Other (please specify): a. ______________________________________
O
O
O
O
O
O
b. ______________________________________
O
O
O
O
O
O
54
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
YOUR CHILDREN
If you have no children, please skip to Question 40.
35a.
Please identify the number of children living with you full-time and record their ages: (example: 3 Child(ren) Ages: 2, 4, 8) Child(ren)
35b.
Age(s): _______________
Of these children, please identify how many have special needs and record their ages: Child(ren) with special needs
36a.
Please identify the number of children living with you part-time and record their ages: Child(ren)
36b.
Age(s): _______________
Of these children, please identify how many have special needs and record their ages: Child(ren) with special needs
37.
Age(s): ______________
Age(s): ______________
While you and your spouse/partner are at work or studying, do you use childcare services? O
No – My children are too old
O
No – Not required
O
Yes – In someone else’s home by a non-relative
O
Yes – In someone else’s home by a relative
O
Yes – In our home by a non-relative
O
Yes – In our home by a relative
O
Yes – In a civilian daycare center
O
Yes – In a MFRC daycare
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
55
38.
39.
40.
41.
56
In your current location, how often have you experienced difficulties finding suitable childcare? O
Never
O
Seldom
O
Sometimes
O
Often
O
Always
O
N/A – I do not have a need for childcare
In your current location, have childcare difficulties affected your ability to obtain/maintain employment? O
Never
O
Seldom
O
Sometimes
O
Often
O
Always
O
N/A – I do not have a need for childcare
Aside from children, are there any additional dependants living full time or part time in your household? O
Yes
O
No
If yes, what types of dependants do you have? Select all that apply. O
My parent(s)/My partner’s parent(s)
O
My grandparent(s)/My partner’s grandparent(s)
O
Other relatives
O
Other people (non-relatives)
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
Section B: You and Your Spouse/Partner’s Workload/Perstempo/Optempo The questions below ask you to tell us how frequently you have moved your residence because of your spouse/partner’s military career; aspects of your employment and your spouse/partner’s workload; how much your spouse/partner is away from home; and how often he or she has been deployed.
POSTING HISTORY 42.
How many times overall have you moved your residence because of your spouse/partner’s postings? postings
43.
How long have you been in your current location? years
44.
AND
months
When you have relocated, how difficult has it been to re-establish the following? (Please respond to all items. If something does not apply to you, please mark the “not applicable” option). Not at all difficult
Somewhat difficult
Extremely difficult
Not applicable
1. Childcare
O
O
O
O
2. Schooling for children
O
O
O
O
3. Your family’s day-to-day routines
O
O
O
O
4. Medical services
O
O
O
O
5. Your employment
O
O
O
O
6. Your professional certification(s)
O
O
O
O
7. Your support network/social contacts
O
O
O
O
8. Your educational requirements
O
O
O
O
9. Access to services to support your family’s special needs
O
O
O
O
10. Access to transport
O
O
O
O
11. Housing
O
O
O
O
12. Your seniority at work
O
O
O
O
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
57
45.
46.
When you have relocated, how difficult has it been to maintain services to support a family member (e.g., aging parent) in your previous location? O
Not at all difficult
O
Somewhat difficult
O
Extremely difficult
O
Not applicable
How has your personal income been impacted as a result of your spouse/partner’s most recent posting? O
My income has increased
O
My income has stayed the same
O
My income has decreased
O
I no longer have an income as a result of the posting
O
Not applicable
WORKLOAD 47.
If you were employed during the past year, please estimate how many hours per week you worked on average. hours per week on average
48.
Please estimate how many hours per week during the past year your military spouse or partner worked on average. hours per week on average
TIME AWAY 49.
Please give your best estimate of the total number of 24-hour days your military spouse or partner was away from your home in the past 12 months as a result of military service for all reasons. days away for all military reasons in the past 12 months
58
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
50.
Has your employment/career suffered as a result of him/her being away for military service reasons? O
Not at all
O
Somewhat
O
Very much so
O
Not applicable
DEPLOYMENTS Note:
for the following questions, “deployment” refers to any NATO or UN operations, deployments to sea for any non-routine operational reason, and to unexpected deployments within Canada, such as those involving floods or other emergencies.
51.
Is your spouse/partner currently deployed? O
Yes
O
No If yes, please specify the location of the deployment. ______________________
52.
If your spouse/partner is preparing for a deployment, when does he/she expect to leave? months
53.
How long ago did your spouse/partner return from his/her most recent deployment? months ago
Please answer the following questions in reference to your spouse/partner’s current or most recent deployment. If your spouse/partner has never deployed, please skip to Question 66.
54.
Please give your best estimate of the total number of days away your military spouse or partner was away from your home in the past 12 months as a result of a deployment. days away for deployment in the past 12 months
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
59
55.
Including the current or most recent deployment (if applicable), how many operational deployments of 30 days or longer has your spouse/partner been on in total and since you have been together? Deployments in total Deployments since we have been together
56.
Please answer the following questions in terms of your spouse/partner’s current or most recent deployment. a.
How long was (or will be) the current or most recent deployment in total (in months)? Week(s)
b.
How much formal notice (in weeks) were you given before your spouse/partner departed on the current or most recent deployment? Month(s)
c.
After being notified of the coming deployment, how long was your spouse or partner away from home (in weeks) for training and other preparation before he or she actually deployed? Week(s) away
d.
e.
f.
60
Before your spouse or partner deployed did you participate in a pre-deployment screening (an interview with a military Padre or Social Worker or other official to discuss you and/or your family’s readiness for your spouse/partner’s absence)? O
Yes
O
No
Before the deployment did you attend an information session describing the deployment and services that would be available during your spouse/partner’s absence? O
Yes
O
No
Were you contacted by the Military Family Resource Centre (MFRC) during your spouse/partner’s absence? O
Yes
O
No
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
g.
h.
i.
Were you contacted by the Military Family Resource Centre (MFRC) during your spouse/partner’s absence? O
Yes
O
No
Did you use any CF/DND services during the deployment? O
Yes
O
No
If yes, which ones (select all that apply)?
O Mission Information Line (MIL)
O Drop-In Centre at MFRC
O Deployment Information Package
O Childcare Services at MFRC
O Resource Library at MFRC
O Mail Drop-Off at MFRC
O Odd Job Registry
O Father’s Deployment Support Group
O Warm Line Telephone Support
O Computers at MFRC
O Spousal Support Groups
O Emergency Child Care
O Deployment-Related Counseling
O Prevention and Intervention Services
O Deployment Cycle Workshops
O Canadian Forces Member Assistance Program
O Web Sites
O Civilian Services/Resources
O Unit Family Briefings
O Other (please specify) ______________________
j.
If you didn’t use any services during the deployment, why not (select the most important reason)?
O Had no need O Wasn’t aware services available O My spouse/partner discouraged me from using them O I don’t trust CF service providers O Didn’t want contact with the CF O Fear of negative career repercussions for my spouse/partner O The type of support that I required was not available. Please specify support needed: _____________________________________________________________________________
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
61
k.
l.
Did or will your spouse/partner return on a Home Leave Travel Assistance (HLTA) during the deployment? O
Yes
O
No
If the deployment is over, did you attend an information session or “de-briefing” providing information on the return and re-integration of your spouse or partner and describing post-deployment services that would be available? O
Yes
O
No
m. If the most recent deployment is over, did you use any post-deployment services?
n.
O
Yes
O
No
If yes, which ones (select all that apply)?
O Individual counselling (CF counsellor)
O Social Worker (CF)
O Individual counselling (civilian)
O Social Worker (civilian)
O MFRC programs
O Psychiatrist/psychologist (CF)
O Spousal support group (MFRC)
O Psychiatrist/psychologist (civilian)
O Mess-affiliated support group
O Clergy/Padre (CF)
O OSISS Family Peer Support Coordinator
O Clergy (civilian) O Canadian Forces Member Assistance Program (CFMAP)
o.
If you didn’t use any services after the deployment, why not (select the most important reason)?
O Had no need O Wasn’t aware services available O My spouse/partner discouraged me from using them O I don’t trust CF service providers O Didn’t want contact with the CF O Fear of negative career repercussions for my spouse/partner O The type of support that I required was not available. Please specify support needed: ________________________________________________________________________
62
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
p.
If the deployment is over, what was the total time away of your spouse/partner from your home resulting from all phases of the deployment (including training and travel)? Months
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
Not applicable
11. My spouse/partner had difficulties adjusting back into the family when he/she returned home at the end of the tour. 12. Our relationship changed when my spouse/partner returned home. 13. My spouse/partner and I needed time to adjust and get to know each other again when he/she returned home. 14. Going on this tour has caused my spouse/partner to have concerns about our family. 15. My career/employment suffered as a result of my spouse/partner being deployed.
Strongly agree
10. I was proud of my spouse/partner going on the tour.
Agree
2. My spouse/partner’s mid-tour leave was important to me. 3. Going on this tour has brought my spouse/partner and me closer together. 4. I was satisfied with the support set up for me by my spouse/partner’s home unit/base during his/her absence. 5. I was satisfied with the support set up for me by other agencies within the CF (family resource centres, padres) during my spouse/partner’s absence. 6. I would prefer to seek support from outside the CF such as friends, relatives, and civilian support services during my spouse/partner’s absence. 7. The opportunity for my spouse/partner to telephone home was important to me. 8. I was worried about my spouse/partner’s safety on the tour. 9. I was worried about my own safety during the period when my spouse/partner was absent on tour.
Neither agree nor disagree
1. The deployment was stressful for me.
Disagree
Please answer the following questions in terms of your spouse/partner’s current or most recent deployment.
Strongly disagree
57.
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
63
Pre-Deployment 58.
How often do you experience the following feelings prior to deployment?
Never
Seldom
Sometimes
Often
Always
Not Applicable
1. Resentment
O
O
O
O
O
O
2. Pride
O
O
O
O
O
O
3. Anger
O
O
O
O
O
O
4. Guilt
O
O
O
O
O
O
5. Frustration
O
O
O
O
O
O
6. Anxiety
O
O
O
O
O
O
7. Sadness
O
O
O
O
O
O
8. In control
O
O
O
O
O
O
9. Capable
O
O
O
O
O
O
10. Confidence
O
O
O
O
O
O
11. Apprehension
O
O
O
O
O
O
59.
Please identify the main stressors/challenges you experienced prior to your spouse/partner deploying.
1.
2.
3.
4.
64
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
Deployment 60.
How often do you experience the following feelings during deployment?
Never
Seldom
Sometimes
Often
Always
Not Applicable
1. Resentment
O
O
O
O
O
O
2. Pride
O
O
O
O
O
O
3. Anger
O
O
O
O
O
O
4. Guilt
O
O
O
O
O
O
5. Frustration
O
O
O
O
O
O
6. Anxiety
O
O
O
O
O
O
7. Sadness
O
O
O
O
O
O
8. In control
O
O
O
O
O
O
9. Capable
O
O
O
O
O
O
10. Confidence
O
O
O
O
O
O
11. Apprehension
O
O
O
O
O
O
61.
Please identify the main stressors/challenges you experienced during your spouse/partner’s deployment.
1.
2.
3.
4.
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
65
Post-Deployment 62.
How often do you experience the following feelings following deployment?
Never
Seldom
Sometimes
Often
Always
Not Applicable
1. Resentment
O
O
O
O
O
O
2. Pride
O
O
O
O
O
O
3. Anger
O
O
O
O
O
O
4. Guilt
O
O
O
O
O
O
5. Frustration
O
O
O
O
O
O
6. Anxiety
O
O
O
O
O
O
7. Sadness
O
O
O
O
O
O
8. In control
O
O
O
O
O
O
9. Capable
O
O
O
O
O
O
10. Confidence
O
O
O
O
O
O
11. Apprehension
O
O
O
O
O
O
63.
Please identify the main stressors/challenges you experienced following your spouse/partner’s return from deployment.
1.
2.
3.
4.
66
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
64.
65.
In your opinion, to what extent does frequent or regular contact with your spouse/partner, during a deployment help you to cope with separation? O
Makes it much harder to cope
O
Makes it somewhat harder to cope
O
It makes no difference
O
Makes it easier to cope
O
Makes it much easier to cope
If you have no children, neither full-time nor part-time custody, please skip to Question 66. Children respond to deployment in different ways. Have you observed the following in your child or among one or more of your children during a deployment? Never
Seldom
Sometimes
Often
Always
1. “Acting out”
O
O
O
O
O
2. Decline in school performance
O
O
O
O
O
3. More “clingy”
O
O
O
O
O
4. Anxiety
O
O
O
O
O
5. Fearfulness
O
O
O
O
O
6. Overall behaviour changes
O
O
O
O
O
7. Unhappiness/sadness
O
O
O
O
O
8. Nightmares
O
O
O
O
O
9. Disruptions in friendships
O
O
O
O
O
10. An increase in sibling rivalry
O
O
O
O
O
11. Emotional withdrawal
O
O
O
O
O
12. Young children sleeping with parent
O
O
O
O
O
13. Anger
O
O
O
O
O
14. Aggression
O
O
O
O
O
15. Violence
O
O
O
O
O
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
67
Section C: Your Health, Your Relationship, Your Family YOUR HEALTH AND WELL-BEING
Please be frank in responding to the questions below - it is crucial that you answer these difficult personal questions to the best of your ability.
66a.
66b.
Do you have a family doctor? O
Yes
O
No
If no, how long have you been without a family doctor? months
67.
Below is a list of things that you might have been diagnosed as having by a medical practitioner. Please answer “yes” to any of these that you have been diagnosed with during your spouse/partner’s career in the CF. This information will be kept COMPLETELY CONFIDENTIAL. Have you been medically diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder?
O
Yes
O
No
Have you been medically diagnosed with Depression?
O
Yes
O
No
Have you been medically diagnosed with Anxiety Disorder?
O
Yes
O
No
Have you been medically diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder?
O
Yes
O
No
Have you been medically diagnosed with any other stressrelated physical or psychological problem? Please Identify:
O
Yes
O
No
_______________________________________________
68
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
68.
Have you recently: No more than usual
Rather more than usual
Much more than usual
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Not at all 1. Been able to concentrate on whatever you are doing? 2. Lost much sleep over worry? 3. Felt that you are playing a useful part in things? 4. Felt capable of making decisions about things? 5. Felt constantly under strain? 6. Felt that you couldn’t overcome your difficulties? 7. Been able to enjoy your normal day-to-day activities? 8. Been able to face up to your problems? 9. Been feeling unhappy and depressed? 10. Been losing confidence in yourself? 11. Been thinking of yourself as a worthless person? 12. Been feeling reasonably happy, all things considered? 69.
How often have each of the following happened to you DURING THE PAST WEEK. Rarely or none of the time
Some or little of the time
Occasionally or a moderate amount of the time
Most or all of the time
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
4. I felt depressed
O
O
O
O
5. I felt that everything I did was an effort
O
O
O
O
6. My sleep was restless
O
O
O
O
7. I was happy
O
O
O
O
8. I enjoyed life
O
O
O
O
9. I felt sad
O
O
O
O
1. I was bothered by things that usually don't bother me 2. I felt that I could not shake off the blues even with the help of my family and friends 3. I had trouble keeping my mind on what I was doing
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
69
70.
If you had a problem that you wanted to talk about, could you go to the following people? Definitely no
No
Don’t know
Yes
Definitely yes
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
1. Spouses of other military members 2. Members of your family (e.g., parents, siblings) 3. Members of your spouse/partner’s family 4. Friends not associated with the military 71.
Could you count on the following people for help with a personal or family problem?
1. Spouses of other military members 2. Members of your family (e.g., parents, siblings) 3. Members of your spouse/partner’s family 4. Friends not associated with the military 72.
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Most of the time
All of the time
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
To what extent does each of the following statements describe you?
1. I can always manage to solve difficult problems if I try hard enough. 2. If someone opposes me, I can find the means and ways to get what I want. 3. It is easy for me to stick to my aims and accomplish my goals. 4. I am confident that I could deal efficiently with unexpected events. 5. Thanks to my resourcefulness, I know how to handle unforeseen situations. 6. I can solve most problems if I invest the necessary effort. 7. I can remain calm when facing difficulties because I can rely on my coping abilities. 8. When I am confronted with a problem, I can usually find several solutions. 9. If I am in trouble, I can usually think of a solution. 10. I can usually handle whatever comes my way.
70
Not at all true
Hardly true
Moderately true
Exactly true
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
73.
We are interested in how people respond when they confront difficult or stressful event in their lives. There are lots of ways to try to deal with stress. This set of questions asks you to indicate what you generally do and feel when you experience stressful events. Obviously, different events bring out somewhat different responses, but think about what you usually do when you are under a lot of stress.
1. I concentrate my efforts on doing 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23.
24. 25. 26. 27. 28.
something about the situation I am in. I try to come up with a strategy about what to do. I try to see it in a different light to make it seem more positive. I accept the reality of the fact that it happened. I make jokes about it. I try to find comfort in my religion or spiritual beliefs. I get emotional support from others. I try to get advice or help from other people about what to do. I turn to work or other activities to take my mind off things. I say to myself ‘this isn’t real’. I say things to let my unpleasant feeling escape. I use drugs or alcohol to make myself feel better. I give up trying to deal with it. I criticize myself. I take action to try to make the situation better. I think hard about what steps to take. I look for something good in what is happening. I learn to live with it. I make fun of the situation. I pray or meditate. I get comfort and understanding from someone. I get help and advice from other people. I do something to think about it less, such as going to movies, watching TV, reading, daydreaming, sleeping, or shopping. I refuse to believe that it has happened. I express my negative feelings. I use alcohol or drugs to help me get through it. I give up the attempt to cope. I blame myself for things that happened.
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
I usually don’t do this at all
I usually do this a little bit
I usually do this a medium amount
I usually do this a lot
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O O O
O O O
O O O
O O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O
O
O
O
O O
O O
O O
O O
71
74.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about your willingness to reveal personal problems. Strongly Disagree
1. It is not good to let your military spouse or partner’s superior(s) at work know about your personal or family problems (e.g., depression, addiction to alcohol, strains in your relationship, etc.) because his or her career might be affected. 2. It is not good to let your spouse or partner’s military co-workers know about your personal or family problems because they might talk about it to others and your spouse/ partner’s career might be affected. 3. It is not good to let other spouses/ partners of military members know about your personal or family problems because they might talk about it to others and your spouse/ partner’s career might be affected. 4. It is not good to seek assistance with personal or family problems from CF service providers (military Padres, Social Workers, Doctors, MFRC staff, etc.) because they might reveal these problems and your spouse/ partner’s career might be affected.
72
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
YOUR SPOUSE/PARTNER’S HEALTH
This next section of the survey contains some difficult questions. You are under no obligation to answer them. However, if you are experiencing some of the problems referred to in this section, your responses will help us in developing relevant policies and programs that could help you and others in the same situation.
75.
Has your spouse or partner been diagnosed by a medical practitioner as having any of the following disorders? This information will be kept COMPLETELY CONFIDENTIAL. O
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
O
Depression
O
Anxiety Disorder
O
Adjustment Disorder
O
Other stress-related physical or psychological problem. Please identify: __________________________________________________________
76.
If your spouse/partner has been diagnosed with any of the disorders listed above, does his or her problems affect YOU in any of the following ways?
1. Fear of spouse/partner and his/her behaviour 2. Fear of triggering symptoms in spouse/partner 3. Fear of breakdown of the relationship with spouse/partner 4. Fear of breakdown of other relationships within the family (e.g., with children)
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
Never
Seldom
Sometimes
Often
Always
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
73
Section D: Your Relationship with your Spouse/Partner 77.
78.
What is the current status of your relationship with your military spouse or partner? O
Legally married (and not separated)
O
Legally married (and separated)
O
Divorced
O
Widowed
O
Common- Law
O
Living Together (not married/common-law)
Overall, how long have you and your military spouse or partner been together (round up to the nearest year)? years
79.
How supportive are you toward each of the following?
1. Your spouse or partner’s current service in the CF 2. Your spouse or partner pursuing a long-term career in the CF 3. Your spouse or partner deploying within the next six months 4. Your spouse or partner deploying six months from now or later
74
Not at all supportive
A bit supportive
Somewhat supportive
Very supportive
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
80.
In answering the following set of questions, please think about your current relationship with your spouse/partner. If you feel a question accurately describes your relationship with your spouse/partner, you would say “yes”. If the question does not describe your relationship, you would say “no”. If you cannot decide whether the question describes your relationship with your spouse/partner, you may say “not sure”.
1. Can you depend on your partner to help you, if you really need it? 2. Do you feel you could not turn to your partner for guidance in times of stress? 3. Does your partner enjoy the same social activities that you do? 4. Do you feel personally responsible for the well-being of your partner? 5. Do you feel your partner does not respect your skills and abilities? 6. If something went wrong, do you feel that your partner would not come to your assistance? 7. Do you feel your competence and skills are recognized by your partner? 8. Do you feel your partner does not share your interests and concerns? 9. Do you feel your partner does not really rely on you for his or her well-being? 10. Do you feel your spouse/partner supports your employment/career aspirations?
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
No
Not sure
Yes
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
75
76
Agree
Strongly agree
Not applicable
family life. 2. The amount of time my spouse or partner’s duty takes up makes it difficult to fulfill family responsibilities. 3. Things I want to do at home do not get done because of the demands my spouse or partner’s military service puts on me. 4. My spouse or partner’s job produces strain that makes it difficult to fulfill family duties. 5. My family life has suffered as a result of my spouse/partner’s work commitments. 6. My educational pursuits have suffered as a result of familyrelated obligations. 7. My educational pursuits have suffered as a result of my spouse/partner’s service-related duties. 8. Due to my spouse or partner’s service-related duties, I have to make changes in my plans for family activities. 9. The demands of my family or spouse/partner interfere with my work-related activities. 10. I have to put off doing things at my work because of the demands on my time at home. 11. Things I want to do at work do not get done because of the demands of my family or spouse/partner. 12. My home life interferes with my responsibilities at work such as getting to work on time, accomplishing daily tasks, and working overtime. 13. Family-related strain interferes with my ability to perform work-related duties. 14. My job progression has suffered as a result of my family obligations. 15. My job progression has suffered as a result of my spouse/partner’s service-related duties. 16. My family life has suffered as a result of my work commitments. 17. My spouse/partner has refused a posting as a result of my employment. 18. My spouse/partner has refused a promotion as a result of my employment. 19. From this point forward, my career is of a higher priority than my spouse/partner’s. 20. I have threatened to leave my spouse/partner as a result of my career/employment suffering due to his/her military service.
Neutral
1. The demands of the military interfere with my home and
Disagree
The following statements describe aspects of the connection between the demands of service life, work, and personal or family life in general. Please rate how much you agree or disagree with each. Strongly disagree
81.
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
82.
How often do you worry about the following?
1. Divorce or the termination of your relationship 2. Your spouse/ partner having an intimate relationship with another person when he or she is away from home 3. Your spouse/ partner leaving you when she or he is away from home
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
All of the time
Most of the time
More often than not
Occasionally
Rarely
Never
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
77
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
When facing problems/difficulties in the family, we respond by: 1. Sharing our difficulties with relatives.
Disagree
How well does each statement describe your attitudes and behaviours in response to family problems or difficulties? Please mark accordingly as each statement applies to you.
Strongly disagree
83.
O
O
O
O
O
2. Seeking encouragement and support from friends. 3. Knowing we have the power to solve major problems. 4. Seeking information and advice from persons in other families who have faced the same or similar problems. 5. Seeking advice from relatives. 6. Seeking assistance from community agencies and programs designed to help families in our situation. 7. Knowing that we have the strength within our own family to solve our problems. 8. Receiving gifts and favours from neighbours (e.g., food, taking in mail). 9. Seeking information and advice from a doctor. 10. Asking neighbours for favours or assistance. 11. Facing the problems head-on and trying to get a solution right away. 12. Watching television. 13. Showing that we are strong. 14. Accepting stressful events as a fact of life.
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O
O
O
O
O
O O O
O O O
O O O
O O O
O O O
15. Sharing concerns with close friends. 16. Knowing luck plays a big part of how well we are able to solve family problems. 17. Exercising with friends to stay fit and reduce tension. 18. Accepting that difficulties occur unexpectedly. 19. Doing things with relatives (get togethers, dinners, etc). 20. Seeking professional counselling and help for family difficulties. 21. Believing we can handle our own problems. 22. Defining the family problem in a more positive way so that we do not become discouraged. 23. Asking relatives how they feel about the problems we face. 24. Feeling that no matter what we do to prepare, we will have difficulty handling problems. 25. Believing if we wait long enough, the problem will go away. 26. Sharing problems with neighbours.
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O O O
O O O
O O O
O O O
O O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
78
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
84.
Please respond frankly to the following difficult, personal questions. At any time during your spouse or partner’s most recent absence on a deployment did you think about taking your own life? O
Yes
O
No
O
Not applicable
At any time during your spouse or partner’s most recent absence on a deployment did you think about ending your relationship with him or her?
85.
O
Yes
O
No
O
Not applicable
Is (or has been) your spouse or partner violent or abusive toward: You
O
Yes
O
No
Children in your family
O
Yes
O
No
Older adults in your family
O
Yes
O
No
Family pets
O
Yes
O
No
Household property
O
Yes
O
No
Your personal possessions
O
Yes
O
No
The personal possessions of others
O
Yes
O
No
NOTE: If responding to these questions has brought back difficult memories or caused you discomfort of any kind, please turn to the last two pages of this survey – there is a list of service provision telephone numbers you can call.
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
79
Section E: Your Views on Policies In this section we ask for your guidance on how the CF should properly govern deployments and Time Away. This is your opportunity to contribute your views and to influence the policies that will affect you and your loved ones. Think about HOW YOU BELIEVE the CF should manage deployments. For each of the following, give us your opinion on what policy would be best for our people, their loved ones, and the organization. In Your Opinion…. 86.
What is the MAXIMUM length of time a deployment should last if there is NO mid-tour home leave? months
87.
What is the MAXIMUM length of time a deployment should last if there is a mid-tour home leave? months
88.
What is the MAXIMUM total period of Time Away from their homes (for all military reasons) involving overnight absences that members SHOULD EXPERIENCE in any 12 month period? months
89.
What is the MAXIMUM number of deployments (assume a six-month tour length) members SHOULD EXPERIENCE in any 3-year period? full deployments
If you have any additional comments, please use the space below.
80
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
Thank you very much for your valuable time and effort. You have helped guide the CF to a more effective and healthier future. Please place this completed survey in the envelope provided and place it in any mailbox – no postage is required. If the envelope is misplaced, please send this to the following address:
The Directorate of Military Personnel Operational Research and Analysis National Defence Headquarters MGen George R. Pearkes Building 101 Colonel By Drive Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0K2
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
81
CF SERVICE PROVISION CONTACT NUMBERS CANADIAN FORCES MEMBER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (CFMAP) .................1-800-268-7708 Hearing Impaired Line (Mon-Fri 7:30 a.m. to 11 p.m. E.T.)......................................1-800-567-5803 The CFMAP is a voluntary and confidential service, initiated by the CF to help members and family members who have personal concerns that affect their personal well-being and/or work performance.
THE CENTRE FOR CARE AND SUPPORT OF INJURED AND RETIRED...........1-800-883-6094 SERVICE MEMBERS AND THEIR FAMILIES http://www.forces.gc.ca/centre/engraph/home_e.asp The CENTRE is designed to bring the joint efforts of both the Department of National Defence and Veterans Affairs Canada together in providing information and services to injured and retired military members and their families. The CENTRE is an initial contact point and referral service. All calls are confidential and in addition to the original consultation and referral, follow-up calls are made to ensure that an individual’s concerns or issues have been resolved and they have received all of the assistance to which they are entitled.
DND/CF Ombudsman1-888-828-3626 http://www.ombudsman.forces.gc.ca/
DND/CF HELP LINE FOR HARASSMENT AND SEXUAL ASSAULT ............ 1-800-290-1019 (E)
CANADIAN FORCES HEALTH INFORMATION LINE ...........................................1-877-633-3368 http://hr3.ottawa-hull.mil.ca/health/services/hig/engraph/health_info_line_e.asp?Lev1= 1&Lev2=1&Lev3=7 The Canadian Forces Health Information Line is a call centre designed to provide CF members with convenient telephone access to health care advice, general health information, and guidance on where and how to access health care services. The service is available to all eligible CF members, and is operated on a 24 hour/day, 7 day/week basis.
CANADIAN FORCES CHAPLAIN GENERAL ........................................................1-866-502-2203 http://hr.ottawa-hull.mil.ca/chapgen/engraph/home_e.asp
82
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
OPERATIONAL TRAUMA AND STRESS SUPPORT CENTRES http://hr.ottawa-hull.mil.ca/health/services/engraph/otssc_home_e.asp These centres will provide assistance to serving members of the CF and their families dealing with stresses arising from military operations, in particular, UN and NATO deployments abroad. This can cause a myriad of psychological, emotional, spiritual and relationship problems. Because these problems are multi-faceted, there is a need to address them from a holistic approach, with a multi-disciplinary team of caring professionals. Atlantic – Halifax ........................................................................................ 1-902-427-0550 ext 5703 Quebec – Valcartier ................................................................................... 1-418-844-5000 ext 7373 Ontario – Ottawa......................................................... 1-613-945-8062 ext 6644 or 1-877-705-8880 Western – Edmonton ................................................................................. 1-780-973-4011 ext 5332 Pacific – Victoria .......................................................................................................1-250-363-4411
CANADIAN/MILITARY FAMILY RESOURCE CENTRES (C/MFRC) http://www.cfpsa.com/en/psp/dmfs/mfrccontact/index.asp
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
83
This page intentionally left blank.
84
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
List of symbols/abbreviations/acronyms/initialisms APA
American Psychiatric Association
CCHS
Canadian Community Health Survey
CES-D
Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale
CF
Canadian Forces
DND
Department of National Defence
DRDC
Defence Research & Development Canada
DRDKIM
Director Research and Development Knowledge and Information Management
FWC
Family-Work Conflict
GHQ
General Health Questionnaire
HDDS
Human Dimensions of Deployment Study
HLTA
Home Leave Travel Allowance
MFRC
Military Family Resource Centre
MFSP
Military Family Services Program
NCM
Non-Commissioned Member
OSI
Operational Stress Injury
PTSD
Posttraumatic Stress Disorder
R&D
Research & Development
SSRRB
Social Science Research Review Board
WFC
Work-Family Conflict
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
85
This page intentionally left blank.
86
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
Distribution list Document No.: DGMPRA TM 2010-017
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
LIST PART 1: Internal Distribution by Centre CMP List 1 DG Air Pers DGLS DGMPR CFLI (Kingston) RMC (Kingston) CFC (Toronto) DG CORA DRDC CORA Chief Scientist DRDC CORA Library (1 copy) DRDKIM Library (2 copies) DRDC/DGSTO/DSTP DGMPRA DGMPRA Chief Scientist DGMPRA Deputy DG DGMPRA – Personnel Generation Research – Section Head DGMPRA – Personnel and Family Support Research – Section Head DGMPRA – Organizational and Operations Dynamics – Section Head DGMPRA – Team Leaders DMFS DRDC (Toronto) VAC LO
23
TOTAL LIST PART 1
0
LIST PART 2: External Distribution by DRDKIM Library and Archives Canada
0
TOTAL LIST PART 2
23
TOTAL COPIES REQUIRED
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
87
This page intentionally left blank.
88
DGMPRA TM 2010-017
DOCUMENT CONTROL DATA (Security classification of title, body of abstract and indexing annotation must be entered when the overall document is classified) 1.
ORIGINATOR (The name and address of the organization preparing the document. Organizations for whom the document was prepared, e.g. Centre sponsoring a contractor's report, or tasking agency, are entered in section 8.)
2.
DGMPRA 101 Colonel By Drive Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0K2 3.
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION (Overall security classification of the document including special warning terms if applicable.)
UNCLASSIFIED
TITLE (The complete document title as indicated on the title page. Its classification should be indicated by the appropriate abbreviation (S, C or U) in parentheses after the title.)
Quality of Life among Military Families: Results from the 2008-2009 Survey of Canadian Forces Spouses: 4.
AUTHORS (last name, followed by initials – ranks, titles, etc. not to be used)
Sudom, K. 5.
DATE OF PUBLICATION (Month and year of publication of document.)
August 2010 7.
6a. NO. OF PAGES 6b. NO. OF REFS (Total containing information, (Total cited in document.) including Annexes, Appendices, etc.)
104
30
DESCRIPTIVE NOTES (The category of the document, e.g. technical report, technical note or memorandum. If appropriate, enter the type of report, e.g. interim, progress, summary, annual or final. Give the inclusive dates when a specific reporting period is covered.)
Technical Memorandum 8.
SPONSORING ACTIVITY (The name of the department project office or laboratory sponsoring the research and development – include address.)
DGMPRA 101 Colonel By Drive Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0K2 9a. PROJECT OR GRANT NO. (If appropriate, the applicable research and development project or grant number under which the document was written. Please specify whether project or grant.)
9b. CONTRACT NO. (If appropriate, the applicable number under which the document was written.)
10a. ORIGINATOR'S DOCUMENT NUMBER (The official document number by which the document is identified by the originating activity. This number must be unique to this document.)
10b. OTHER DOCUMENT NO(s). (Any other numbers which may be assigned this document either by the originator or by the sponsor.)
DGMPRA TM 2010-017 11. DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY (Any limitations on further dissemination of the document, other than those imposed by security classification.)
Other: Canadian Forces, Department of National Defence, and Defence R&D Canada 12. DOCUMENT ANNOUNCEMENT (Any limitation to the bibliographic announcement of this document. This will normally correspond to the Document Availability (11). However, where further distribution (beyond the audience specified in (11) is possible, a wider announcement audience may be selected.))
Other: Canadian Forces, Department of National Defence, and Defence R&D Canada
13. ABSTRACT (A brief and factual summary of the document. It may also appear elsewhere in the body of the document itself. It is highly desirable that the abstract of classified documents be unclassified. Each paragraph of the abstract shall begin with an indication of the security classification of the information in the paragraph (unless the document itself is unclassified) represented as (S), (C), (R), or (U). It is not necessary to include here abstracts in both official languages unless the text is bilingual.)
Families of military members face a number of unique challenges associated with the military lifestyle, including frequent relocations, temporary housing, spousal unemployment and underemployment, separations, and deployments of their military member to potentially dangerous situations. Such stressors can have adverse consequences for families of military personnel. This report presents an overview of the top-line findings from a survey administered to spouses/partners of Canadian Forces (CF) members in 2008. Descriptive-level statistics on the stressors experienced by the spouses of CF members, the potential outcomes of high levels of stress, and the factors that may buffer against or exacerbate these outcomes, are provided. The military can have a pervasive influence on family life, and conversely, the family can have an impact on the serving member as well as on the military organization as a whole. Families of military personnel provide support to members’ well-being, readiness, performance, and ability to carry out missions. The results of this survey will enhance understanding of the impacts of military service on families of CF personnel.
14. KEYWORDS, DESCRIPTORS or IDENTIFIERS (Technically meaningful terms or short phrases that characterize a document and could be helpful in cataloguing the document. They should be selected so that no security classification is required. Identifiers, such as equipment model designation, trade name, military project code name, geographic location may also be included. If possible keywords should be selected from a published thesaurus, e.g. Thesaurus of Engineering and Scientific Terms (TEST) and that thesaurus identified. If it is not possible to select indexing terms which are Unclassified, the classification of each should be indicated as with the title.)
DGMPRA
www.drdc-rddc.gc.ca
