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

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 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.

References

Allison-Aipa, T. S., De La Rosa, G., Stetz, C., & Castro, C. A. (2005). The impact of National Guard activation for homeland defense: Employers' perspective. Military Medicine, 170, 846–849.

Allison-Aipa, T. S., Ritter, C., Sikes, P., & Ball, S. (2010). The impact of deployment on the psychological health status, level of alcohol consumption, and use of psychological health resources of post-deployed U.S. Army Reserve soldiers. Military Medicine, 175, 630–637.

Ben-Dor, G., Pedahzur, A., Perliger, A., & Bermanis, S. (2008). I versus we. Armed Forces & Society, 34, 565–592.

Bressler, M. (n.d.). Planning and projecting critical human resource needs: The relationship between hope, optimism, organizational commitment, and turnover intention among U.S. Army Reserve soldiers. Journal of Behavioral Studies in Business, 2–9.

Daywalt, T., & Herman, R. (2006). Employee relations during military deployments. Wiley Periodicals, 49–52.

Fetter, J. M. (2004). Sustaining AMEDD professionals' strength in the reserve components. Strategy Research Project, 1–34.

Griffith, J. (2005). Will citizens be soldiers? Examining retention of reserve component soldiers. Armed Forces & Society, 31, 353–383.

Griffith, J. (2008). Institutional motives for serving in the U.S. Army National Guard. Armed Forces & Society, 34, 230–258.

Hansen, M. L., & MacLeod, I. D. (2004). Retention in the reserve and guard components. CAN.

Hisey, L. L. (2009). The effects of activation on employers of reserve and National Guard soldiers (Doctoral dissertation). The School of Human Resource Education and Workforce Development.

Jensen, J. A. (n.d.). The effects of operational deployments on Army reserve component attrition rates. School of Advanced Military Studies.

La Bash, H., Vogt, D. S., King, L. A., & King, D. W. (2009). Deployment stressors of the Iraq War. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 231–258.

Lakhani, H. (1995). Reenlistment intentions of citizen soldiers in the U.S. Army. Armed Forces & Society.

Lomsky-Feder, E., Gazit, N., & Ben-Ari, E. (2008). Reserve soldiers as transmigrants. Armed Forces & Society, 34, 593–614.

RAND Research Brief. (2010). Reserve component unit instability. National Defense Research Institute. Retrieved December 29, 2010, from www.rand.org.

Reed, B. J., & Segal, D. R. (2000). The impact of multiple deployments on soldiers' peacekeeping attitudes, morale, and retention. Armed Forces & Society, 27, 57–78.

Smith, H. (2010). Operational stress and retention. Center of Military and Strategic Studies, 12, 55–62.

Wisecarver, M. M., Cracraft, M. L., & Heffner, T. S. (2006). Deployment consequence: A review of the literature. U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.