Deployment Effects on Army Reserve Retention: A Literature Review

Introduction and Purpose

The purpose of this literature review is to provide an overview of the major research conducted regarding the effects of deployment on reserve troops and to investigate possible reasons for attrition. This review is representative of published literature through 2010. The review is organized into five sections. The first section covers the history and the importance of reserve troops to the Army. The second section discusses the relationship between deployment and personal issues—such as family and finances (or employment)—as they affect reservists. The third section explores the details and outcomes of policies and interventions structured to respond to these negative impacts. The fourth section presents the relationship between deployment and reservists' intentions to reenlist. The fifth section synthesizes the whole and presents recommendations for the future.

The reserve unit was originally instituted with the objective of providing backup forces to military personnel during times of need. Born on April 23, 1808, with the passing of Senate Bill 1424—which implemented the Medical Reserve Corps (Jensen, n.d.)—reserve units were initiated for medical emergencies. The Army Appropriations Act of August 24, 1912, created the Army Reserve as it exists today. Historically, the Reserve was activated only in isolated events, such as for humanitarian relief or as police support during riots (Hisey, 2009). The first act of national protection involving the reserve unit occurred in 1916, when 3,000 reservists were mobilized to protect the U.S.–Mexican border. Some 160,000 reserve personnel participated in World War I, while 200,000 fought in World War II. Reserve deployment for the Vietnam and Korean Wars was comparatively low. However, the global rise of terrorism has elevated the need for reserve forces to levels not seen since World War II, and because the war on terrorism remains ongoing, that need continues to grow. Charles L. Cragin, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs, captured this reality precisely:

The History and Importance of the Reserves to the U.S. Army

"The bottom line is that we cannot go to war, enforce a peace agreement, or undertake prolonged humanitarian missions anywhere in the world today without calling on the Guard and Reserve." (Jensen, n.d., p. 1)

The post-September 11 era is one not of peace but of readiness to contain and destroy terrorism wherever it may be found. To that effect, quiet mobilizations of reservists have become an everyday occurrence, with multiple long-duration deployments becoming an intrinsic part of that reality.

Concurrently, however, statistics show that retention of reservists is declining sharply. Twenty-six percent of reservists plan to leave the Army following the completion of deployment, compared to the 18% who reenlist (Lakhani, 1995). More significantly, a large proportion of those who decline to reenlist are professionals whose education and experience could greatly benefit the service (Lakhani, 1995). Indeed, reports show that the most successful military occupations of reservists during the Gulf War were those linked to civilian specializations (Lomsky-Feder, Gazit, & Ben-Ari, 2010). Being older and, generally, more tolerant, reservists may be superior to younger recruits for missions involving peacekeeping and control. The Israeli Defense Forces' unit for announcing deaths to families, for instance, is comprised entirely of older reserve soldiers understood to possess greater maturity, sensitivity, wisdom, and empathy in handling such delicate matters.

Reserves also represent another invaluable element: they serve as a bridge between the military and civilian worlds. This may be especially important when operating in countries—such as Japan—where strong anti-American sentiment exists. Soldiers who visibly represent portions of civil society may reduce some of that prejudice and make managing the Army's actions less challenging (Lomsky-Feder, Gazit, & Ben-Ari, 2010). Unfortunately, these valuable soldiers are more likely to leave because of the financial, mental, and family burdens imposed on them during deployment.

Reserves make up a significant 47% of total troops, involving approximately 1.3 million men and women (Lomsky-Feder, Gazit, & Ben-Ari, 2010), and represent an extensive fraction of the country's military strength. At the time of this review, reserves constituted approximately 40% of the troops deployed in Iraq.

The common assumption—shaped largely by romanticized imagery—is that the Army largely consists of hardy, pioneering young single recruits. Far too often ignored is the large part that reserves play in actively defending national security. About one-quarter of American soldiers killed in Afghanistan have been reservists (Lomsky-Feder, Gazit, & Ben-Ari, 2010). The problem is particularly severe in another respect as well: in the interest of stability and coherency, military forces strive to keep unit membership constant over time. This is especially important when troops are deployed in hostile areas, since fluctuations in personnel affect Army morale and require ongoing training for newcomers.

With the Army frequently required to mobilize on short notice, there is limited time and few resources for training (RAND, 2010). Turnover is also expensive: it is costly to provide training, housing, food, and equipment for soldiers who, once their commitment ends, do not return.

Most importantly, with the Army Reserve being a top contributor to various operations throughout the Army (Bressler, n.d.), the Army simply needs reservists for its continued success and for national protection and defense. These patterns of increasing reservist attrition should therefore be cause for government and military concern.

Because reservists occupy a differential position—inhabiting both the internal world of the Army and the external world of family life and civilian employment—Lomsky-Feder et al. (2008) maintain that different requirements should be applied to them:

"They are not young conscripts undergoing a nationalized period of their lives, nor regulars who are full-time soldiers. Rather, while they do serve for many years in military contexts they are also very much rooted in the civilian sphere. These are not soldiers whose lives are almost totally appropriated by the armed forces but troops who are involved only partially. They are also not professionals in the proper sense of the word, but often their military work draws on their civilian experience and knowledge. Finally, their social status may be anchored in contexts outside the military. . . . Reservists constantly move between dimensions of space and time and mediate social contexts of involvement and knowledge." (p. 598)

Professional medical personnel are a major component of the reserve unit. However, as the Army Reserve has increased its mobilizations, there has been a significant reduction, since 2000, in the number of doctors, dentists, physician assistants, and nurses who have reenlisted for service in the Army Reserve and Army National Guard (Fetter, 2004). Reserves are a valuable resource, and this review intends to explore potential effects of deployment on reservists before concluding with suggestions for improving retention.

Potential Effects of Deployment on Reservists

The same motivators that drive reservists in wartime also drive them in peacetime, and different individuals are spurred by different factors. Generally, Ben-Dor, Pedahzur, Perliger, and Bermanis (2008) found that it is personal concerns rather than the idealistic passion of "rallying around the flag" that motivates military performance and commitment to reenlist. The higher a reservist's income and stature in the Army, the more respected he or she feels by commanders and peers, and the stronger the ideological commitment to nation and cause, the greater the attachment to the military. Conversely, competing commitments of work, family, and civilian life may pull the reservist away from the Army. Reservists who are insufficiently motivated in peacetime will remain so during wartime, prompting researchers to conclude that such factors should be addressed during periods of peace so that they do not produce military unpreparedness when the nation most needs its resources (Ben-Dor et al., 2008; see also Griffith, 2008, on the negative implications that materially motivated soldiers may have on troop morale and national security during crisis). Although Ben-Dor's study is specific to Israel, aspects of their findings can be extended to the U.S. Army, particularly when examining the personal motivators common to all reservists.

Mobilization is a constant feature of the reserve soldier's Army life. As Williams (quoted by Lomsky-Feder et al., 2008) put it: "Our drill instructors had not prepared us for the process of reintegration . . . because it is a phenomenon that is unique to reservists." He elaborated:

"Active-duty Marines experience reintegration briefly, if at all, as they pass through hometowns during their ten-day period of leave. . . . There is little time, and even less necessity for them to return to civilian ways of thinking, feeling, and acting. . . ." (p. 601)

Some deployments may last as long as 18 months or more, and some reservists may find themselves in a hostile environment such as Iraq on multiple occasions (La Bash et al., 2009). The sense of frustration may be compounded by reservists knowing that their families must rely on reduced salaries during their absence, yet being powerless to improve the situation. Some families have been forced to file for bankruptcy, while reservists who own small businesses have lost them or struggled to keep them operational during their enlistment (La Bash et al., 2009). In fact, 59% of married personnel agreed that deployment placed enormous stress on their families (Wisecarver, Cracraft, & Heffner, 2006), and the longer the reservist's absence, the more intense that stress becomes.

Lengthy training exercises can also compel family separation, as can certain types of assignments and permanent changes of station. Families may disintegrate; the bond between spouses may loosen; family concerns arise that the absent soldier can do nothing about; and studies show that feelings of inadequacy in dealing with those concerns adversely affect the soldier's own health (La Bash et al., 2009).

Of all the factors that affect retention, family separation may rank foremost. RAND (1987) found that family separation was one of the top five reasons given for leaving the Army, while in another study, Marines cited it as their sole reason for refusing to reenlist (Wisecarver, Cracraft, & Heffner, 2006). Separation from family remains an ongoing reason for leaving the Army, and its prevalence has increased in recent years.

Operational stress injuries (OSI) are a common occurrence in the Army. Both psychological and physical casualties can result.

A very high level of stress is inherent in deployment, since civilians are trained under artificially induced physical and psychological stress to prepare them for the demands that will follow in real-life duties. The stress of preparation is only a foretaste of what is to come, serving as conditioning for the Army's standard of operational fitness, readiness, and performance. Psychological effects are therefore expected and normal. It is the resilient individual who is exceptional and worthy of study. Everyone, Smith (2010) and Allison-Aipa et al. (2010) maintain, is affected by the trauma and demands of Army life, from leader down, and each person faces the burden of readjustment to community life after deployment. "OSI," concludes Smith (2010), "is merely one subset of that continuum of well-being, requiring specialized attention" (p. 57).

The Army's impact on health can further affect employment opportunities once the soldier returns to civilian life. There are those who never fully recover their mental or physical capacities, aside from those who are permanently disabled. No amount of money, time, or willpower can restore lost capacity, and physical or cognitive limitations are likely to deter returning reservists from regaining employment in their former positions—or from finding alternate work. The Army thus stunts their career potential and effectively impedes their reentry into the job market. This is in addition to the loss of valuable expertise and years of future service caused by those who fail to recover from military-related health impacts. Quality of life deteriorates, and the stress on family becomes debilitating. The ramifications can range from marital breakdown—if a spouse feels unable to cope with the soldier's altered mental or physical condition—to, in extreme cases, suicide.

Of course, operational health effects differ from person to person and from situation to situation. For some, exposure to physically and psychologically challenging conditions—even traumatic events—can generate excitement and a sense of purpose. For others, traumatic events may produce ambivalence, distress, guilt, and existential anxiety. Lomsky-Feder et al. (2008) note that existential sentiments may be especially common among reservists, since, unlike regular soldiers who are permanently embedded in the Army, reservists straddle two worlds. The perspective gained from entering Army life from their regular civilian existence may make their duties more unsettling. Treatment is not simple either: combat and war-related trauma ranks at or near the top of any stress measurement instrument, and the trauma may be so intense and lasting that it resists cure (Smith, 2010).

Psychological and health effects may not be the only negative reactions. Stress endured in service can impair interpersonal relationships—not only with family, but also with friends and workplace colleagues. The older and more professionally established the individual, the greater the potential impact. A reservist is therefore more likely to feel the effects than a regular force member returning to civilian life, particularly because the reservist's employer and colleagues are less likely to understand deployment-related emotional or behavioral difficulties. If the reservist is already uncertain about whether to stay or leave, OSI-related issues will almost certainly tip the balance toward leaving.

Financial factors depend on many variables, not least whether the reservist is self-employed or employed by a corporation. There have been cases where entrepreneurs have lost their businesses—particularly if those businesses were small, new, or already struggling—where families have filed for bankruptcy during the soldier's absence, or where the reservist has barely managed to operate a business from a distance. Other financial factors depend on length of deployment, geographic location, the nature of the soldier's activities during deployment, and whether deployment occurred during peacetime or wartime. While La Bash et al. (2009) noted the hazards that deployment poses to personal finances, Wisecarver, Cracraft, and Heffner (2006) observed the reverse, noting that some reserve members may actually benefit from the additional pay to which soldiers are entitled. These incentives include Family Separation Allowance, Imminent Danger Pay, Hardship Duty Pay, Hazardous Duty Incentive Pay, and Combat Zone income tax exclusion. Ultimately, profit or loss may depend on the financial status of the individual: the higher-earning soldier may lose more by leaving a civilian job, while the lower-income soldier may actually benefit financially from service.

While owners of small or sole-proprietor businesses may be justifiably concerned about keeping their operations afloat, those who are employed by organizations have legal protections and generally fare better. Nonetheless, Allison-Aipa et al. (2005) found that many reservists are concerned about the effects of deployment on their civilian employment, particularly during periods of high unemployment.

The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) guarantees reservists a comparable job—with equivalent seniority and benefits—in the event their former position was eliminated. However, this guarantee may not always materialize in practice, and the individual may have had a particular job satisfaction tied to factors such as geographic location, colleagues, or specific working conditions that are difficult or impossible to recreate elsewhere. USERRA also prohibits employers from reducing pay upon a reservist's return or offering unequal compensation. Nonetheless, returning reservists may still face challenges, such as adapting to a workforce that has advanced its skills during their absence—a situation that can result in lower morale.

The correlation between employer attitude and the likelihood of reenlistment is substantial (Allison-Aipa et al., 2005). Generally, employers—both with and without military experience—are almost universally supportive of their reservist employees, and in many cases are proud of them (Lomsky-Feder et al., 2008, note that the reverse occasionally occurs). This supportive attitude exists despite the fact that the workforce is disrupted in countless ways, from managers having to reassign responsibilities, to paying for temporary replacements, to interruptions in scheduling, product delivery, and workflow (Daywalt & Herman, 2006). Lamar Hisey (2009) corroborates these findings, noting that the majority of organizations he surveyed adapted well to their employees' activation and were overwhelmingly supportive of both the reservist's family and the continued functioning of the business in the soldier's absence. Daywalt and Herman (2006) reported similar results, with employers and coworkers eager to help both the company and the reservist's family adjust.

In summary, reports on the reservist's employment situation are mixed. Some return to their previous positions with no change in status; others find their job gone. Much depends on the specific individual, the circumstances, the economic climate, and the employer.

Reservists, as Lomsky-Feder, Gazit, and Ben-Ari (2008) explain, often feel like migrants between two worlds: that of the Army and their regular civilian life. More unsettling still, their peers may view them similarly, uncertain of where to place them. Having been away from home for an extended period, reservists may return to find that "the locals" view them with a degree of suspicion. Consistent research does show that those "left behind" regard returning reserves with ambivalence and uncertainty (Lomsky-Feder, Gazit, & Ben-Ari, 2008). This ambivalence is not confined to the home front. The same dynamic appears within the Army, where reserves are "sometimes viewed as 'marginal organizations' within the structure of national armed forces" (Lomsky-Feder et al., 2008, p. 603). Indeed, reservists in Operation Iraqi Freedom frequently complained of being treated as "second-class citizens," receiving inferior training and equipment compared to regular soldiers, who sometimes treated them with condescension. Regular troops also harbored suspicions about reservists' reliability and commitment, occasionally perceiving them as taking advantage of the system. It is for this reason that reservists are often labeled "fillers" or "spare parts"—terms that do nothing to bolster the morale of soldiers who sacrifice a great deal to fulfill their duty.

Female reservists may face additional hardships. Sexual harassment is an unfortunate reality in the stressful environment of military life. Incidents have ranged from exposure to online pornography to attempted and completed sexual assault (La Bash et al., 2009). Inadequate support and intervention following such attacks have been common, and research on military sexual trauma indicates that these assaults may have serious effects on post-deployment health (La Bash et al., 2009).

In short, reservists face social tension both within and outside the Army. As a figure inhabiting two worlds, the reservist may ultimately choose the external civilian world over continued military service.

In a study examining the effects of deployment on enlisted personnel and gauging their influence on retention, RAND (2010) found that, as expected, non-hostile deployments tended to have a positive effect on retention—partly because they also reduced the time to promotion, which likely served as an additional incentive. Individuals react in varying ways to being deployed in hostile environments: whereas some accept or even welcome the opportunity, others use it as an occasion to leave. Notably, hostile deployment had varying effects depending on seniority, with junior officers less affected than midgrade officers. The historical period also appeared to influence retention rates. During the early 1990s, junior officers showed a higher retention rate than in the late 1990s, possibly because hostile deployments were perceived as a route to distinction. For midgrade officers, the early 1990s saw decreased retention, likely because they faced increased hostile deployments combined with fewer opportunities for promotion (RAND Research Brief, 2010).

The length of deployment also affects retention. Findings from the 1999 Survey of Active Duty Personnel record that the likelihood of reenlistment among those deployed seven to twelve months was only 46%, compared to 57% for those away for only one month (RAND Research Brief, 2010).

The major influences on retention include the impact of deployment on family members and their support of the decision to reenlist. Social factors, both inside and outside the Army, may also dissuade reservists from reenlisting. Workforce factors play a role as well, although contrary to popular expectation, members do not always leave the military to pursue civilian opportunities—particularly since the Army itself may provide such opportunities—making this determinant variable across military occupations. Occupation, therefore, has a minimal impact on retention (RAND, 2010). With respect to external employment, outcomes vary depending on the specific conditions, employee, and employer: while most employers are supportive (Allison-Aipa et al., 2005), this is not universally the case.

Deployment variables can either increase or decrease retention. These include the nature of the duty, the level of hostility in the deployment location, the length of the deployment, and the number of dependents left behind. Of all these factors, the tenor of the deployment (the degree of hostility) and its length are the most significant in reducing retention.