1. Spouse Impact on Retention
Army Profile
468,541 Active Duty Soldiers
More than half (59%) of all Soldiers have family matters and responsibilities on their minds
243,778
Spouses
430,206
Children
52% are married
43% have children
4,060
Adult Dependents
Every Family has unique needs, requiring a flexible and responsive service network
50% Earn money for college
35% Have an attractive lifestyle
23% Be in contact with family and friends
85%
63%
58%
Today’s Youth 16-24
IMPACT
Many youth never even consider the Military as a career – only 13% seriously consider service
Youth lacks favorable associations with the Military that drive consideration
79% of Soldiers come from Families that have served in the Military
DoD Joint Advertising, Market Research & Studies (JAMRS), 2018
Data from Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC), January 2018
Social support is vital for healthy coping and adaptation of Soldiers, spouses, and children
Spouse support of Soldier staying on active duty is a significant predictor of actual retention behavior
Member
Stayed
Left
Spouse Impact on Retention
Service members whose spouses strongly favored staying on active duty stayed at a rate of about 13 for every 1 who left
MWR Customer Satisfaction
Office of People Analytics (OPA), April 2018
DoD Morale, Welfare, and Recreation (MWR) Customer Satisfaction Survey, Army Results, 2016
Index
Unit participation in MWR Programs continues to show a very positive effect on satisfaction, readiness, resilience, retention & unit cohesion
Q: “Indicate the degree to which you agree that MWR programs or services at your installation help you and your family”
Service members whose spouses strongly favored leaving stayed at a rate of 3 for every 4 who left

2. OSD REQUIRES THE MILITARY SERVICES TO EVALUATE THE IMPACT OF FAMILY READINESS
What is OACSIM doing to meet the requirement to evaluate? A few examples…
(DoDI Military Family Readiness, 3 July 2012)
Program Assessment:
Cornell University completed an independent review of the methodology used by the Army to evaluate Soldier and Family programs
 Cornell’s conclusion:
The Army’s effort to create a culture of evaluation
has largely succeeded
The Army’s methodology is consistent with nationally recognized standards developed by the Centers for Disease Control with evaluation methods
used by evidence-based practice registries and with
generally accepted program evaluation procedures
(e.g. literature review, needs assessment, cost benefit analysis, outcome evaluation)
Needs Assessment:
Soldier Needs Survey
Active Duty Soldiers reported
High satisfaction with military resources used for help
Soldiers indicated some resources such as
Army Community Service & Chaplains
played a key role in connecting them to other helpful resources
 Spouse Needs Survey fielded Jan-Apr 2018
Top Problem Areas
- Military Culture
- Soldier Well-being
- Work/Life Balance
Cornell University, Bronfenbrenner Center for Translational Research, 2016
Top
Help
Needed
- Activities
- General Info
- Emotional Support
- Advice/Counseling
Recruitment
Readiness
Resilience
Retention
Cost Benefit Analysis:
Army Volunteer Corps
In FYs 14 and 15 each, AVC produced
3 million volunteer hours (1,393 FTEs)
The average garrison produced
18,000 volunteer hours
almost 9 full-time equivalent (FTE) positions
Return on Investment estimated to be
$15.25 for every $1 spent
a total fiscal benefit of $52M
RAND Today’s Soldier Needs Survey, 2016
Outcome Evaluation and Cost Benefit Analysis:
Survivor Outreach Services
Survivors of Fallen Soldiers who were assisted by the
Army SOS program…
Were more resilient
Felt more connected to the Army
Experienced a stronger sense of social support
than non-SOS users
 Army SOS users also showed significantly better behavioral health
evidenced by lower prolonged grief and psychological distress
SOS yields a net benefit of $1.59 for every $1 invested
COST BENEFIT 
Taxable Output
Taxable Earnings
Crime Cost Aversion
Health/Welfare Cost Aversion
Clearinghouse for Military Family Readiness, Penn State University, 2018
Clearinghouse for Military Family Readiness, Penn State University,
We are building a clear and concise summary of evidence of effectiveness for Family and MWR Programs