Home Uncategorized Decision-Making

Uncategorized

Decision-Making

Assignment Questions: (Marks 05)

Read the attached article titled as “7 Strategies for Better Group Decision-Making” by Torben Emmerling and Duncan Rooders, published in Harvard Business Review, and answer the following Questions: [5 Marks]

Summarize the article and explain the main issues discussed in the article. (In 600-700 words) (Marks 3)
What do you think about the article in relations to what you have learnt in the course about improving decision-making and problem solving skills? Use additional reference to support you argument. (In 300-500 words) (Marks 2)

Assignment Instructions:

· Log in to Saudi Digital Library (SDL) via University’s website

· On first page of SDL, choose “English Databases”

· From the list find and click on EBSCO database.

· In the search bar of EBSCO find the following article:

Title: “7 Strategies for Better Group Decision-Making”

Author: Torben Emmerling and Duncan Rooders

Date of Publication: September 22, 2020

Published: Harvard Business Review

Assignment Questions: (Marks 05)

1. Summarize the article and explain the main issues discussed in the article. (In 600-700 words) (Marks 3)

2. What do you think about the article in relations to what you have learnt in the course about improving decision-making and problem solving skills? Use additional reference to support you argument. (In 300-500 words) (Marks 2)

The Demographics of Military Children and Families

VO L . 2 3 / N O. 2 / FA L L 2 0 1 3 1 3

Summary
Since the advent of the all-volunteer force in the 1970s, marriage, parenthood, and family
life have become commonplace in the U.S. military among enlisted personnel and officers
alike, and military spouses and children now outnumber service members by a ratio of 1.4
to 1. Reviewing data from the government and from academic and nonacademic research,

Molly Clever and David R. Segal

find several trends that distinguish today’s military families.
Compared with civilians, for example, service members marry younger and start families ear-
lier. Because of the requirements of their jobs, they move much more frequently than civilians
do, and they are often separated from their families for months at a time. And despite steady
increases since the 1970s in the percentage of women who serve, the armed forces are still
overwhelmingly male, meaning that the majority of military parents are fathers.

Despite these distinguishing trends, Clever and Segal’s chief finding is that military families
cannot be neatly pigeonholed. Instead, they are a strikingly diverse population with diverse
needs. Within the military, demographic groups differ in important ways, and the service
branches differ from one another as well. Military families themselves come in many forms,
including not only the categories familiar from civilian life—two-parent, single-parent, and so
on—but also, unique to the military, dual-service families in which both parents are service
members. Moreover, military families’ needs change over time as they move through personal
and military transitions. Thus the best policies and programs to help military families and
children are flexible and adaptable rather than rigidly structured.

www.futureofchildren.org

Molly Clever is a Ph.D. candidate in sociology at the University of Maryland. David R. Segal is a professor of sociology and director of the
Center for Research on Military Organization at the University of Maryland.

The Demographics of Military Children

and Families

Molly Clever and David R. Segal

1 4 T H E F U T U R E O F C H I L D R E N

Molly Clever and David R. Segal

S
ince the transition to an all-
volunteer force (AVF) in 1973,
families have grown increasingly
important to the military’s per-
sonnel policy; since 9/11, military

families have received greater attention in
the media and from scholars. Recognizing
the sacrifices and support that come from
all whose lives are linked to military service
members, President Barack Obama and the
Joint Chiefs of Staff define the “military fam-
ily” as active-duty service members, members
of the National Guard and Reserve, and
veterans, as well as members of their immedi-
ate and extended families and the families of
those who lost their lives in service to their
country.1 This broad definition recognizes
that the federal government and the nation
have obligations to all who have served
their country, as well as to those who have
supported that service. However, research-
ers who study and collect data on military
families and children tend to define military
families as the spouses and dependent chil-
dren (age 22 and younger) of men and women
on active duty or in the National Guard
and Reserve. In this issue of The Future of
Children, we adopt this more limited defini-
tion. Military policy affects this population’s
daily lives; they change houses and schools,
adopt new communities, take care of house-
hold responsibilities when their loved ones
are deployed, and care for physically and
psychologically wounded warriors when they
return home.

Since the early days of the AVF, the mili-
tary has recognized that whether service
members decide to reenlist often depends
on whether their families are happy with
military life.2 The military needs high-quality
recruits who will stay long enough to make
the expense of their recruiting and training
worthwhile. Therefore, it must ensure that

service members’ spouses and children are
satisfied enough with military life, despite
its many challenges, to encourage and sup-
port their service member’s decision to
join and remain in the military. Of course,
military life can be stressful. The stress that
wartime deployment puts on families has
been recognized since World War II, and
military family members have long helped
units function.3 After World War II, military
policy increasingly institutionalized fam-
ily members’ roles. Beginning in the 1960s,
the military adapted the strong tradition of
spousal voluntarism to develop a worldwide
network of federally funded community orga-
nizations for service members called Family
Centers.4 Family Readiness Groups (FRGs)
at the unit level, often staffed by spouses and
immediate family members, offer training
and social support to family members and
disseminate information about issues such as
deployment and moving.5 Many institutional-
ized responses to the needs of family mem-
bers have sprung from grass-roots advocacy
by family members themselves.6

The military has long recognized that service
members’ families influence the strength and
effectiveness of the fighting force. Obama
recently made “the care and support of
military families a top national security policy
priority,” highlighting the need to ensure that
military children develop in healthy and pro-
ductive ways.7 To help the spouses and depen-
dent children of military service members,
military leaders and policy makers need good
and timely data. They need to know who mili-
tary family members are, what hardships they
face, what strengths they bring to the military
community, and how these factors change
over time and across an increasingly diverse
population. Data of this type come primarily
from three sources.

VO L . 2 3 / N O. 2 / FA L L 2 0 1 3 1 5

The Demographics of Military Children and Families

• The Department of Defense (DoD) sup-
plies data that are largely demographic
in nature and administrative in function.
DoD data sources show the diversity of
military personnel and reveal important
ways that service members and their fami-
lies differ from their civilian counterparts.

• Nonacademic research organizations,
such as the RAND Corporation and the
Pew Research Center, provide important
quantitative and qualitative data on issues
that affect service members, veterans, and
military families, as well as information
on public perceptions of the military and
knowledge of military needs.

• Academic scholarship is paying more
attention to the military and military fam-
ily members. The social science subfield of
military sociology focuses extensively on
the interactions between military and civil
society, but scholars in other social science
fields, as well as public policy and health,
also study military families.

Drawing from these sources, this article pro-
vides the context to understand how military

families and children function. We begin by
outlining the basic demographics of military
families, comparing statistics on marriage
and family formation across service branches
and between service members and civilians.
These data demonstrate that military fami-
lies tend to marry and have children younger
than civilians do, a trend that is influenced
both by military policy and by the personal
traits of people most likely to be drawn to
military life. We then discuss the military
family in the context of the military life-
style, emphasizing how the “greedy” nature
of both the military and the family places
unique demands on military family members,
including frequent moves and prolonged and
repeated deployments. We discuss the pros
and cons of these aspects of military life for
children in military families, particularly in
their educational and social development.
For example, although frequent moves can
disrupt a child’s school progress, they can
also help change bad habits and strengthen
parent-child bonds.

Within each of these topics, we highlight
areas where we need more data, research,
and discussion. For example, although we
know that children in military families tend
to be relatively young, we don’t know much
about how young children and infants func-
tion in military families. In addition, because
the military population is unique in many
ways, comparing service members to civil-
ians raises the question of how best to define
an appropriate civilian comparison group.
In another vein, comparisons between the
active-duty and National Guard and Reserve
populations highlight how little we know
about the families of Guard and Reserve
members. These comparisons also show the
dynamic nature of the military population
and the methodological challenges inher-
ent in studying people who move among

Military families are a diverse
population whose needs
vary over time and across
demographic groups. No
single story can encapsulate
who military families are or
what they need to flourish
in military and civilian
communities.

1 6 T H E F U T U R E O F C H I L D R E N

Molly Clever and David R. Segal

active-duty, Guard and Reserve, and civilian
communities over the course of their service.

Though certain trends distinguish military
families from their civilian counterparts,
our central finding is that military families
are a diverse population whose needs vary
over time and across demographic groups.
No single story can encapsulate who mili-
tary families are or what they need to flour-
ish in military and civilian communities.
Rather, the demographic context shows that
military families and children need flexible
policies that can adapt to their diverse and
dynamic needs.

Demographics of Military Families
The relationship between the military and
the families of its service members has
changed substantially since the advent of
the AVF. In the draft era, “military fam-
ily” typically meant senior officers’ wives
and children, who were expected to play a
supporting role in their husbands’ or fathers’
careers. Even as the force began to change,
service members were typically young,
unmarried men who served only briefly
before rejoining the civilian world to begin
their careers and start families. By the 1970s,
the majority of soldiers were married, yet
the adage “if the military wanted you to have
a family, it would have issued you one” was
common among military personnel managers
into the 1980s.8

In today’s AVF, however, service members
are not expected to delay marriage and chil-
dren until their service is complete; rather,
marriage and parenthood are common across
all ranks of service. Military family members
now outnumber military personnel by
1.4 to 1, and they represent a range of family
forms.9 In 2011, 726,500 spouses and more

than 1.2 million dependent children lived in
active-duty families, and 409,801 spouses and
743,736 dependent children lived in Guard
and Reserve families.10 Table 1 provides basic
demographic information about active-duty,
Guard and Reserve, and comparable civilian
populations. Comparing these groups raises
important questions for research on military
families. What constitutes an appropriate
civilian comparison group? What do compar-
isons between active duty and the Guard and
Reserve tell us about the differences between
these populations?

As table 1 shows, the civilian population we
selected for comparison consists of people
aged 18 to 45 who are in the labor force. This
restriction limits the comparison to popula-
tions who share certain similarities, namely,
they are relatively young and they choose to
work. Nonetheless, there are important dif-
ferences between these military and civilian
populations that restrict our ability to draw
broad conclusions. Still, our comparisons pro-
vide important insight into how active-duty
service members, the Guard and Reserve,
and civilians differ.

The first major difference is in age distribu-
tion. The military population is relatively
young compared with civilians in the labor
force. Active-duty service members stay in
the military for fewer than 10 years on aver-
age. And because service members can get
retirement benefits after 20 years, the age
distribution of active-duty service members is
heavily skewed toward the under-40 popula-
tion. Two-thirds of active-duty members are
between the ages of 18 and 30.11 The civil-
ian working population, by contrast, is more
evenly distributed by age; 45 percent of the
civilian comparison group are between 18
and 30, and 55 percent are between 31 and
45. Restricting the civilian comparison group

VO L . 2 3 / N O. 2 / FA L L 2 0 1 3 1 7

The Demographics of Military Children and Families

Table
1.
Selected
Demographic
Characteristics
of
Active
Duty,
Reserve,
and
Civilian
Populations,
2011

Active
Duty
Guard
and
Reserve

Civilian
Workers,
Aged

18–45

Total
Population
1,411,425
855,867
91,208,300

Average
Age
28.6
32.1
31.9

Sex

Female
14.5%
18.0%
47.3%

Male
85.5%
82.0%
52.7%

Race

White
or
Caucasian
69.8%
75.7%
72.2%

Black
or
African
American
16.9%
15.0%
12.9%

Asian

3.8%
3.1%
5.7%

All
other
races
and
multiple
races
9.6%
6.2%
9.2%

Ethnicity

Hispanic
11.2%
9.8%
19.2%

Non-‐Hispanic
88.8%
90.2%
80.8%

Education
(highest
degree
achieved)

No
High
School
diploma
or
GED
0.5%
2.4%
10.7%

High
School
diploma
or
GED
79.1%
76.8%
60.1%

Bachelor’s
degree
11.3%
14.3%
2

Advanced
degree
7.0%
5.5%
9.2%

Unknown
2.1%
1.0%
-‐-‐

Marital
Status

Now
married
56.6%
47.7%
43.0%

Divorced/Separated
4.5%
7.3%

10.0%

Widowed/other
0.1%
0.2%
0.4%

Never
married
38.8%
44.7%
46.1%

Children

With
dependent
children
at
home
44.2%
43.3%
43.1%

Average
number
of
children
2.0
2.0
2.0

Source: Active Duty and Guard and Reserve data from Department of Defense, 2011 Demographics Profile of the
Military Community; civilian data from U.S. Census Bureau 2011 American Community Survey, obtained through
www.ipums.org.

Table 1. Selected Demographic Characteristics of Active-Duty, Guard and Reserve, and
Civilian Populations, 2011

Source: Active duty and Guard and Reserve data from Department of Defense, 2011 Demographics Profile of the Military
Community; civilian data from U.S. Census Bureau 2011 American Community Survey, obtained through www.ipums.org.

to people between 18 and 45 helps us create
a better match between service members and
civilians, because fewer than 9 percent of the
active-duty force is over 40. However, the
difference in age distribution is behind some
of the differences we saw. For example, the
civilian group, which skews older, is likely to
have older children.

But if we keep in mind that the active-
duty military population skews younger

than the civilian comparison group, we can
highlight some important differences. For
example, although the active-duty popula-
tion is younger on average than the civilians,
they are more likely to be married and have
children at home. Also, when families have
children at home, the average number of chil-
dren among active duty, Guard and Reserve,
and civilians is identical at 2.0. Because the
active-duty population skews much younger
than the Guard and Reserve or the civilian

Table 1. Selected Demographic Characteristics of Active Duty, Reserve, and Civilian Populations, 2011

Active

Duty
Guard and

Reserve
Civilian Workers,

Ages 18–45
Total
Population
1,411,425 855,867 91,208,300

Average
Age
28.6 32.1 31.9

Sex

Female
14.5% 18.0% 47.3%
Male
85.5% 82.0% 52.7%

Race

White
or
Caucasian
69.8% 75.7% 72.2%
Black
or
African
American
16.9% 15.0% 12.9%
Asian

3.8% 3.1% 5.7%
All
other
races
and
multiple
races
9.6% 6.2% 9.2%

Ethnicity

Hispanic
11.2% 9.8% 19.2%
Non-‐Hispanic
88.8% 90.2% 80.8%

Education
(highest
degree
achieved)

No
high
school
diploma
or
GED
0.5% 2.4% 10.7%
High
school
diploma
or
GED
79.1% 76.8% 60.1%
Bachelor’s
degree
11.3% 14.3% 20.0%
Advanced
degree
7.0% 5.5% 9.2%
Unknown
2.1% 1.0% —

Marital
Status

Now
married
56.6% 47.7% 43.0%
Divorced/separated
4.5% 7.3% 10.0%
Widowed/other
0.1% 0.2% 0.4%
Never
married
38.8% 44.7% 46.1%

Children

With
dependent
children
at
home
44.2% 43.3% 43.1%
Average
number
of
children

2.0 2.0 2.0

Source: Active Duty and Guard and Reserve data from Department of Defense, 2011 Demographics Profile of
the Military Community; civilian data from U.S. Census Bureau 2011 American Community Survey, obtained
through www.ipums.org.

1 8 T H E F U T U R E O F C H I L D R E N

Molly Clever and David R. Segal

population, the fact that the average number
of children is the same across these three
groups suggests that active-duty personnel
tend to form families at a younger age.

A second major difference across these
groups is gender distribution. The propor-
tion of women serving in the military has
risen steadily since the 1970s, but women
still make up only 14.5 percent of the active-
duty force and 18 percent of the Guard and
Reserve, compared with 47.5 percent of the
civilian labor force. The larger proportion of
women in the Guard and Reserve than in the
active-duty force may reflect a belief among
women that Guard and Reserve service is
more compatible with family responsibilities.

A third factor to consider as we draw
comparisons across these populations is the
dynamic nature of the military population.
The Guard and Reserve contain many peo-
ple who formerly served on active duty. In
addition, and particularly during wartime,
people who have been called up from the
Guard or Reserve are considered to be on
active duty. When we directly compare these
categories, then, we need to use caution and
keep in mind the life-course trajectories
of military personnel. We also have much
less information about how military service
affects the families of Guard and Reserve
members than we do for active-duty person-
nel; until the recent conflicts in Iraq and
Afghanistan, Guard and Reserve personnel
were rarely called to active service
for extended periods and so were typically
left out of research. The military’s increased
reliance on the Guard and Reserve to
supplement the active force in the past
decade has brought into sharp relief the
need for more data on the families of Guard
and Reserve personnel.

Still, table 1 demonstrates some notable
demographic differences among the active-
duty, Guard and Reserve, and civilian popu-
lations. Both the active-duty and Guard and
Reserve populations have a higher proportion
of African Americans than does the civilian
labor force, but a smaller proportion of Asian
Americans. Research suggests that racial
minorities, particularly African Americans
(and especially African American women)
are more likely to choose military service
than their white counterparts because they
see the military as a meritocratic institution
that offers them greater opportunity than
they would find in higher education or the
civilian labor market.12 On the other hand,
although the proportion of Hispanics in the
active-duty force has grown in recent years,
from less than 4 percent in the 1970s to
11.2 percent in 2011, it has not risen as fast
as the proportion of Hispanics in the civilian
population. But this disparity may be due to
the military’s requirements for immigration
status and education. Research suggests that
if we count only military-eligible people,
Hispanics are overrepresented relative to the
general population.13

Thanks to the military’s education require-
ments, relatively few people on active duty
(0.4 percent) or in the Guard and Reserve
(2.4 percent) lack a high school diploma or
GED, compared with civilians in the labor
force (10.7 percent). The military’s minimum
requirements are a college degree for offi-
cers and a high school diploma for enlisted
personnel, and the military rarely makes
exceptions; fewer than 5 percent of enlisted
personnel have a GED rather than a standard
high school diploma.14 However, more people
among the civilian labor force have a bach-
elor’s degree or higher (29.2 percent) than
among the active-duty force (18.3 percent) or
the Guard and Reserve (19.8 percent). Much

VO L . 2 3 / N O. 2 / FA L L 2 0 1 3 1 9

The Demographics of Military Children and Families

of this difference in educational attainment
may be attributed to the younger age of the
active-duty population, as well as the fact
that many people join the military to receive
educational benefits through the GI Bill and
complete their college education after leaving
the service.

Marriage and Divorce
Active-duty service members are more likely
to be married and less likely to be divorced
than their civilian counterparts overall, but
there are differences by gender. Compared
with their civilian counterparts, military men
are more likely to be married at all ages. At
ages 30 and under, military women are more
likely than civilian women to be married, but
at ages 33 and older, civilian women are more
likely to be married (figure 1). This trend can
be explained largely by the fact that women
are more likely than men to leave the military
once they get married or have children.15

As a whole, people in the military tend
to marry younger than their civilian

counterparts. Among junior enlisted per-
sonnel (ranks E1 through E5, or private
through sergeant in the Army, for example),
36 percent of men and 37 percent of women
are married.16 Among civilians aged 18 to
24 with comparable earnings, 24 percent of
men and 33 percent of women are married.17
These general trends, however, exhibit some
variation by gender and race. In the military,
women are less likely than their male rank
peers to be married; 45 percent of enlisted
women and 55 percent of enlisted men are
married. In the officer ranks, this differ-
ence is even more pronounced: 52 percent
of female officers and 72 percent of male
officers are married. When married, women
are far more likely than their male peers to
be married to another service member;
48 percent of married active-duty women
are in dual-service marriages, compared
with only 7 percent of men.18 While African
American men and women and white men on
active duty are less likely than their civilian
counterparts to divorce, white women in the
military are more likely to divorce than their

Figure 1. Percentage Married by Age and Gender: Military Personnel vs. Civilians, FY2011

Source: Office of the Secretary of Defense, Population Representation in the Military Services: Fiscal Year 2011.

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
41
43
45+

MALE
MILITARY
FEMALE
MILITARY
MALE
CIVILIAN
FEMALE
CIVILIAN

Figure 1. Percentage Married by Age and Gender: Military Personnel vs. Civilians, FY2011

Source: Office of the Secretary of Defense, Population Representation in the Military Services: Fiscal Year 2011.

Figure 1. Percentage Married by Age and Gender: Military Personnel vs. Civilians, FY2011

Source: Office of the Secretary of Defense, Population Representation in the Military Services: Fiscal Year
2011.

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
41
43
45+

MALE
MILITARY
FEMALE
MILITARY
MALE
CIVILIAN
FEMALE
CIVILIAN

Figure 1. Percentage Married by Age and Gender: Military Personnel vs. Civilians, FY2011

Source: Office of the Secretary of Defense, Population Representation in the Military Services: Fiscal Year 2011.

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
41
43
45+

MALE
MILITARY
FEMALE
MILITARY
MALE
CIVILIAN
FEMALE
CIVILIAN

2 0 T H E F U T U R E O F C H I L D R E N

Molly Clever and David R. Segal

civilian counterparts.19 And although African
American civilian men are more likely to be
divorced than white civilian men, this racial
divorce gap nearly disappears in the military,
a pattern that is likely due to the structure
of the military environment, which tends to
equalize the constraints faced by families of
all races.20

Marriage and divorce patterns among service
members reflect both push and pull factors
in the military. Those who choose military
service tend to have more conservative values
regarding family and gender roles compared
with the civilian population, and these
conservative values may partly explain the
fact that they are more likely than civilians
to marry and have children, especially at
younger ages. Indeed, civilians with conserva-
tive values are more likely than other civil-
ians to be married. However, this association
is small, and it is likely that military policy
plays a larger role than values in driving ser-
vice members’ decisions to marry and form
families.21 To improve retention, the AVF has
become increasingly family-friendly, with
programs such as full family health cover-
age, family housing and accredited day care
on base, and numerous programs and activ-
ity centers for children. For enlisted service
members, marriage and parenthood mean
higher off-base housing and moving allow-
ances.22 Service members move often (typi-
cally every two to three years), and moving
presents them with an immediate context
for making relationship decisions; when the
change of duty station orders arrive, the
couple must decide whether they will split
up, maintain their relationship long-distance,
or marry. When service members go to war,
they may see marriage as an attractive option,
because their spouses will receive military
benefits if they are injured or killed. Because
single service members receive far less in

moving and housing allowances than those
who are married, and because many duty
stations are in areas where off-base housing is
scarce or unavailable, service members have
little incentive to cohabit, an increasingly
common choice among unmarried civilian
couples. In one study, active duty men in
relationships, and African American men in
particular, were significantly more likely to
choose marriage over cohabitation when com-
pared with their civilian counterparts, con-
trolling for income. The study indicated that
among male service members, both personal
and military environmental factors influenced
decisions about whether to marry.23

Another fact points to the strong incentive to
marry that military policy produces: although
people in the military are more likely than
their civilian counterparts to be married,
people entering the military are more likely
to be single than their civilian peers of the
same age. Thus, “they enter single and marry
young.”24 This is not to say that service mem-
bers choose to marry and start families solely
for the financial benefits. There is no reason to

Service members move often,
and moving presents them
with an immediate context
for making relationship
decisions; when the change of
duty station orders arrive, the
couple must decide whether
they will split up, maintain
their relationship long-
distance, or marry.

VO L . 2 3 / N O. 2 / FA L L 2 0 1 3 2 1

The Demographics of Military Children and Families

think that service members’ primary reasons
for deciding to marry are different from those
of civilian families. Financial considerations,
including job security and health benefits,
play a role in relationship decisions of civil-
ians and military personnel alike. However,
because of the military’s unique structural
context, there are differences between service
members and civilians when it comes to such
things as the timing of marriage or marital
stability. Among 23- to 25-year-olds, for exam-
ple, those who have served on active duty are
three times as likely to be married as those
who have never served.25

The divorce patterns of service members
and veterans further highlight the sup-
port for families that the military provides.
While they are in the military, couples are
less likely to divorce than their civilian
counterparts. Once they leave the military,
however, this trend reverses. Veterans are
three times as likely to be divorced as those
who have never served.26 Research indi-
cates that the military environment protects
families from the stresses that often lead
to divorce, and that veterans’ marriages
become less stable once they leave this sup-
portive military context.27

Children
In addition to broader factors that influence
marriage and the formation of families in
the military as a whole, cultural differences
across the branches of service influence the
presence and age distribution of children
in military families. Figure 2 presents the
age distributions of children in active-duty
and Guard and Reserve families. Among
the service branches, Marine Corps families
are the youngest; 47 percent of children in
these families are of preschool age, and only
11 percent are of high school age or older.

This is substantially younger than the rest
of the active-duty force, in which 41 to 42
percent of children are of preschool age and
16 percent are of high school age and older.
Because the Marine Corps places a pre-
mium on the youth of its service members,
it isn’t surprising that Marine families are
younger than other military families. Among
the Air Force and Navy, where the organi-
zational culture emphasizes experience and
advanced technological training, service
members tend to stay in the military longer,
and their children tend to be somewhat older.
Compared with children in active-duty fami-
lies, children in Guard and Reserve families
are older; 28 percent are of preschool age
and 44 to 45 percent are of primary school
age. Because many people in the Guard and
Reserve are former active-duty service mem-
bers, the fact that their children are slightly
older is to be expected. That is, many of the
older children in Guard and Reserve fami-
lies were once preschool-age children in an
active-duty family.

Although we know that the distribution of
children in active-duty families is skewed
toward preschool age, most scholars who
study children and military families have
focused on school-age children and teen-
agers. This partly reflects a scholarly interest
in children’s education, and partly the logisti-
cal challenges of studying young children and
infants. Available information on infants and
toddlers in military families tends to focus on
physical health. For example, one study found
that military women have fewer preterm
births than their civilian counterparts, and
that some racial inequalities in preterm births
between white and African American women
disappear in the military.28

School-age children in military families live
in both military and civilian communities.

2 2 T H E F U T U R E O F C H I L D R E N

Molly Clever and David R. Segal

The Department of Defense Education
Activity (DoDEA) school system operates 194
K–12 schools in seven states in the U.S., 12
foreign countries, Guam, and Puerto Rico.
DoDEA schools enrolled approximately
86,000 students in 2011; 96 percent were
children of active-duty service members,
and 4 percent were children of DoD civilian
employees.29 DoDEA students represent less
than 13 percent of school-age military chil-
dren; the vast majority of military children
attend civilian schools. Most children whose
parents are on active duty attend schools in
areas with a large military presence, where
teachers, administrators, and civilian stu-
dents alike may recognize the unique needs
of military children. Moreover, evidence
indicates that in the past decade, educators in
these schools have become substantially more
aware of the issues that military children
face.30 By contrast, children whose parents
serve in an area without a large military
base, or whose parents are in the Guard or
Reserve, may attend schools that see very
few military children, and other members of

the community may not know that military
children attend their schools.

To understand how children function in
military families, we must understand the
context of their parents’ life-course transi-
tions, service branch, and rank. Though the
military lifestyle certainly has its challenges,
it also offers families advantages and oppor-
tunities. As members of a military family,
children are guaranteed to have at least one
parent with a steady, full-time paycheck.
The military pay scale is determined by both
rank and years of service, which are strongly
correlated with the service member’s age.
Raising a family can be financially difficult
for parents in the most junior enlisted ranks,
but every unit offers financial counseling
services, and in an emergency, FRGs can
provide social and economic support. Table 2
shows the percentage of people in each rank
category with dependent children, and their
basic pay. Basic pay does not include other
financial benefits that service members often
receive, such as medical benefits and housing

Figure 2. Age Distribution of Children in Military Families, FY2011

Note: Children over the age of 18 must live at home to be considered dependents. Those aged 21-22 years must
be enrolled in college to be considered dependents.
Source: Department of Defense, Demographics 2010: Profile of the Military Community.

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Army
Navy
Marine

Corps

Air
Force
Total

AcAve

Duty

Army
Navy
Marine

Corps

Air
Force
Total

Guard
and

Reserve

Ac#ve
Duty

Guard
and
Reserve

Preschool
(0
to
5
years)
Primary
school
(6
to
14
years)
High
school
and
above
(15
to
22
years)

Figure 2. Age Distribution of Children in Military Families, FY2011

Note: Children over the age of 18 must live at home to be considered dependents. Those aged 21–22 years must be enrolled
in college to be considered dependents.
Source: Department of Defense, Demographics 2010: Profile of the Military Community.

Figure 2. Age Distribution of Children in Military Families, FY2011

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Army
Navy
Marine

Corps

Air
Force
Total

AcAve

Duty

Army
Navy
Marine

Corps

Air
Force
Total

Guard
and

Reserve

Ac#ve
Duty

Guard
and
Reserve

Preschool
(0
to
5
years)
Primary
school
(6
to
14
years)
High
school
and
above
(15
to
22
years)

Figure 2. Age Distribution of Children in Military Families, FY2011

VO L . 2 3 / N O. 2 / FA L L 2 0 1 3 2 3

The Demographics of Military Children and Families

Table 3. Percentage of Service Members with Dependent Children, by Pay Grade and Monthly Income

Pay
Grade
With
Dependent
Children
Monthly
Income
Range

E1–E4
21.7%
$1,491–$2,363

E5–E6
60.5%
$2,123–$3,590

E7–E9
81.9%
$2,680–$5,524

W1–W5
78.6%
$2,765–$6,930

O1–O3
35.4%
$2,828–$6,136

O4–O6
76.7%
$4,289–$9,371

O7–O10
60.9%
$8,046–$15,647

Note: The Air Force does not have warrant officers, pay grades W1–W5.
Source: Department of Defense, Demographics 2010: Profile of the Military Community.

allowances. Among the most junior enlisted
ranks, whose monthly basic pay ranges from
$1,491 to $2,363, more than one-fifth of
service members have dependent children.
Among the senior enlisted ranks, 82 percent
have dependent children. Most active-duty
personnel (83.4 percent) are in the enlisted
ranks, and 16.6 percent are officers. Officers
typically must have a college degree, while
enlisted personnel must have a high school
diploma or equivalent. Given the differences
in educational requirements, pay scale, and
job responsibilities, the distinction between
the enlisted and officer ranks is roughly com-
parable to the distinction between blue-collar
and white-collar jobs in the civilian labor
market. This means that the military is more
blue-collar than the civilian labor force, where
61 percent of Americans hold blue-collar jobs
and 39 percent hold white-collar jobs.31

Family Types
Like civilian families, military families take
many forms. For example, military families
may be nuclear, single-parent, blended, multi-
generational, or dual-service. Moreover, many
nontraditional military families—for exam-
ple, cohabiting adults and same-sex part-
ners—may go unrecognized due to military

regulations that govern family member
dependent status. Military policy, then, must
recognize that the military lifestyle affects
different types of families differently. We
discuss some aspects of the military lifestyle
that affect families in more detail below; this
section describes the basic demographics of
family types in the military.

Table 3 details the structures of active-duty
and Guard and Reserve families by sex and
race. Because women are more likely to leave
the force once they start a family, military
men of all races are more likely than mili-
tary women to have children at home. Black
women are more likely than other military
women to have children; 47.3 percent of
black women on active duty have children,
compared with 30.4 percent of white women
and 37.4 percent of Hispanic women. This
racial difference may be partly due to the fact
that black women tend to stay in the military
longer than white women do.32 The data also
suggest that women are more likely than men
to transition to the Guard or Reserve when
they have children; white, Hispanic, and
non-Hispanic women of other races in the
Guard and Reserve are more likely than their
counterparts on active duty to have children,

Table 2. Percentage of Service Members with Dependent Children, by Pay Grade and
Monthly Income

Note: The Air Force does not have warrant officers, pay grades W1–W5.
Source: Department of Defense, Demographics 2010: Profile of the Military Community.

2 4 T H E F U T U R E O F C H I L D R E N

Molly Clever and David R. Segal

Table 4. Family Status of Active-Duty and Guard and Reserve Personnel by Race/Ethnicity and Sex, FY2010

Race/Ethnicity

White,
Non-‐Hispanic
Black,
Non-‐Hispanic

All
other
races,

Non-‐Hispanic

Hispanic,
all
races

Family
Status
Men
Women
Men
Women
Men
Women
Men
Women

Active
Duty
823,763
102,546
177,711
56,510
114,341
25,698
133,660
24,468

With
Children
43.7%
30.4%
54.2%
47.3%
41.9%
32.3%
48.4%
37.4%

Single
3.4%
7.7%
8.3%
20.5%
3.1%
9.0%
4.6%
12.1%

Married
to
civilian
38.8%
13.8%
42.2%
16.5%
37.2%
14.2%
42.2%
14.3%

Married,
dual

service
1.4%
8.9%
3.7%
10.3%
1.5%
9.1%
1.6%
10.9%

Without
Children
56.3%
69.6%
45.8%
52.7%
58.1%
67.7%
51.6%
62.6%

Single
38.5%
44.1%
32.3%
37.5%
41.8%
45.0%
35.0%
39.9%

Married
to
civilian
15.7%
10.0%
10.2%
7.5%
14.4%
9.8%
14.6%
9.6%

Married,
dual

service
2.1%
15.5%
3.3%
7.6%
2.0%
12.9%
2.1%
13.2%

Guard
and
Reserve
286,569
56,101
45,419
21,123
26,419
7,420
34,177
9,330

With
Children
43.5%
35.1%
47.1%
45.9%
41.4%
38.2%
47.9%
40.2%

Single
6.7%
12.7%
12.6%
26.2%
6.3%
18.6%
9.2%
17.8%

Married
to
civilian
36.1%
17.4%
33.4%
16.6%
34.3%
14.5%
38.0%
17.7%

Married,
dual

service
0.7%
5.0%
1.0%
3.1%
0.7%
5.0%
0.7%
4.7%

Without
Children
56.5%
64.9%
52.9%
54.1%
58.6%
61.8%
52.1%
59.8%

Single
41.9%
46.9%
41.6%
44.2%
44.8%
44.8%
39.2%
44.3%

Married
to
civilian
14.1%
13.1%
10.7%
7.9%
13.2%
11.7%
12.4%
10.7%

Married,
dual

service
0.5%
4.9%
0.6%
2.1%
0.6%
5.3%
0.5%
4.9%

Source: Defense Manpower Data Center.

Jonathan D. Wallace 4/29/13 12:06 PM
Comment [1]: Neil,
Mike:
The
authors
have

simplified
this
table
at
my
request,
but
I
fear
it’s
still

a
bit
large
and
unwieldy.
What
do
you
think?

while there is little difference in the propor-
tion of active-duty men who have children
versus men in the Guard and Reserve.

Dual-service families are unique to the
military. While many civilian families have
two full-time employed parents, the military’s
demands, especially for deployment and
frequent moving, present unique challenges
to families where both parents are service
members. Dual-service couples are less
likely to have dependent children than are
couples with only one parent in the service,
and among married service members, women
are far more likely to be in dual-service

marriages than are men (48 percent vs. 7
percent).33 This substantial gender difference
in dual-service marriages reflects a number
of complex factors, including the overall
gender imbalance in the military, as well as
individual and military contextual selection
factors. Differences in the rates of dual mar-
riage across branches of service themselves
reflect differences in the gender composi-
tion and culture of the service branches. As
figure 3 shows, dual-service marriages are
most common in the Air Force, where 11
percent of enlisted personnel and 9 percent
of officers are married to another service
member, followed by the Army and the Navy,

Table 3. Family Status of Active-Duty and Guard and Reserve Personnel by Race/Ethnicity
and Sex, FY2010

Source: Defense Manpower Data Center.

Table 4. Family Status of Active-Duty and Guard and Reserve Personnel by Race/Ethnicity and Sex, FY2010

Race/Ethnicity

White,
Non-‐Hispanic
Black,
Non-‐Hispanic

All
other
races,

Non-‐Hispanic

Hispanic,
all
races

Family
Status
Men
Women
Men
Women
Men
Women
Men
Women

Active
Duty
823,763
102,546
177,711
56,510
114,341
25,698
133,660
24,468

Guard
and
Reserve
286,569
56,101
45,419
21,123
26,419
7,420
34,177
9,330

With
Children
43.5%
35.1%
47.1%
45.9%
41.4%
38.2%
47.9%
40.2%

Single
6.7%
12.7%
12.6%
26.2%
6.3%
18.6%
9.2%
17.8%

Married
to
civilian
36.1%
17.4%
33.4%
16.6%
34.3%
14.5%
38.0%
17.7%

Married,
dual

service
0.7%
5.0%
1.0%
3.1%
0.7%
5.0%
0.7%
4.7%

Source: Defense Manpower Data Center.

Jonathan D. Wallace 4/29/13 12:06 PM
Comment [1]: Neil,
Mike:
The
authors
have

simplified
this
table
at
my
request,
but
I
fear
it’s
still

a
bit
large
and
unwieldy.
What
do
you
think?

VO L . 2 3 / N O. 2 / FA L L 2 0 1 3 2 5

The Demographics of Military Children and Families

and they are least common in the Marine
Corps. The military requires single parents
and dual-service parents to have a plan for
the care of their dependents should they
be deployed. Though personnel managers
consider requests from dual-service parents,
and they try to keep families together, the
military’s staffing needs take precedence.
Particularly for high-level officers and those
who have highly specialized occupations, the
military’s staffing needs may require spouses
to be separated from each other for extended
periods, even when they are both stationed
stateside. These dual-service parents must
make difficult decisions about where their
children will live.

Single-parent families also face unique chal-
lenges in the military. Though on-base day
care is available for all parents, single parents
must make arrangements for child care dur-
ing extended training exercises and deploy-
ments. Because personnel cannot expect to
be stationed close to their extended fami-
lies, single parents in the military are often
isolated from the kind of family networks

that can greatly help single civilian parents.
Nearly 76,000 single parents were on active
duty in 2010. Although more than twice as
many of these single parents are men than
women, given the proportion of men and
women on active duty, female service mem-
bers are more likely to be single parents than
are male service members.34 Among active-
duty service members, 4 percent of men
and 12 percent of women are single parents;
among the Guard and Reserve, 8 percent
of men and 17 percent of women are single
parents. Single parenthood also varies by
rank and service branch. Across all branches
of service, people in the enlisted ranks are
more likely to be single parents than are
officers. The rate of single parenthood is
highest in the Army enlisted ranks, where
7 percent of service members are single
parents (figure 3). The proportion of single
parents in the military is higher than in the
civilian population, where 2.3 percent of
households are headed by a single male par-
ent and 7.4 percent of households are headed
by a single female parent.35

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Enlisted
Officer
Enlisted
Officer
Enlisted
Officer
Enlisted
Officer

Army
Navy
Marine
Corps
Air
Force

Single
without
children

Single
with
children

Married,
civilian

Married,
joint
service

Figure 3. Family Status of Officers and Enlisted Personnel, by Service Branch

Source: Defense Manpower Data Center.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Enlisted
Officer
Enlisted
Officer
Enlisted
Officer
Enlisted
Officer

Army
Navy
Marine
Corps
Air
Force

Single
without
children

Single
with
children

Married,
civilian

Married,
joint
service

2 6 T H E F U T U R E O F C H I L D R E N

Molly Clever and David R. Segal

The Military Lifestyle
Prolonged separation and frequent moves are
two of the best-known features of military
life, but many others affect family satisfac-
tion. Mady Segal suggests that both the
military and the family are “greedy” institu-
tions, in that both require intense commit-
ment, time, and energy while seeking to limit
participants’ other roles.36 The military’s
demands include the risk of injury or death,
whether during training, while operating
military equipment, or in wartime deploy-
ment; separations from family; frequent
moves; living in foreign countries; long and
unpredictable duty hours; pressure to con-
form to high standards of behavior; and a
male-oriented culture. People in many occu-
pations experience some of these demands,
but service members and their families are
likely to experience all of them, often in a
relatively short time. Segal conceived the
greedy institution model in the context of
the peacetime AVF, but it has taken on new
meaning in the post-9/11 era. The mili-
tary’s changing operational needs, as well as
broader social changes to family structure
and gender roles, have increased the poten-
tial for conflict between competing military
and family demands.37

Despite the military lifestyle’s many chal-
lenges, it also offers advantages to families.
Next, we discuss both the challenges and
opportunities that the military lifestyle pres-
ents to families and children in the context of
frequent moves and family separations.

Geographic Location and Mobility
Active-duty families are typically tied to
military installations, and they are therefore
concentrated along the Eastern Seaboard and
in the rural South, as well as in California,
Alaska, and Hawaii. As of the end of

September 2012, about 1.1 million people, or
82 percent of the active force, were stationed
in the continental United States; 5 percent
were stationed in Alaska, Hawaii, and U.S.
territories, or were afloat; 5 percent were
stationed in Europe; 4 percent in East Asia
and Pacific regions; and less than 1 percent in
North and Sub-Saharan Africa and Central
and South America. Approximately 3 percent
of the active force is classified as “undistrib-
uted,” which includes sites in Afghanistan,
Iraq, Kuwait, South Korea, and unknown or
classified locations. When military personnel
are sent overseas, even to noncombat areas,
most family members stay stateside. Of the
two million total military dependents, 94 per-
cent reside in the continental United States
and 5 percent in Alaska, Hawaii, and the U.S.
territories. Only 1 percent of military depen-
dents are in Europe, Africa, Asia, or Latin
America.38 Although at any given time most
service members are stateside and not in a
war zone, military life is dynamic. Nearly all
military families experience a move outside
the continental United States and deployment
of a family member.

The geographic mobility that the military
expects of active-duty families can be a
source of both stress and excitement. Active-
duty military personnel must move on aver-
age once every two to three years, meaning
that military families move 2.4 times as often
as civilian families. They are also more likely
than civilian families to move long distances,
across state lines, or to foreign countries.
(Guard and Reserve families are typically not
required to move, and their residence and
relocation patterns are more similar to those
of civilian families.)

Richard Cooney, Mady Segal, and Karin
DeAngelis have said that military families
are both “tied migrants” and “tied stayers.”39

VO L . 2 3 / N O. 2 / FA L L 2 0 1 3 2 7

The Demographics of Military Children and Families

As tied migrants, spouses and children must
move with the service member to keep the
family together, despite the cost to their own
schooling or employment chances. Once
the family moves, they become tied stayers,
bound to the site of their service member’s
assignment, which may limit their opportuni-
ties for jobs and education.

Not all families move with the military, how-
ever. A minority of married service members
are “geographical bachelors or bachelorettes,”
whose spouses and children stay in one loca-
tion while they move from place to place. The
evidence indicates that such people represent
a small minority of married service mem-
bers—approximately 6 percent of those in
first marriages and 7 percent of those in sec-
ond marriages.40 The information we have on
this phenomenon, however, was collected in
the 1990s, and we don’t know whether, as the
pace of deployment has increased in the post-
9/11 era, more families have been choosing
geographical bachelorhood to keep children
in the same school, stay close to extended
family, maintain a spouse’s career, or meet
mortgage obligations. We do know that the
recent mortgage crisis affected many mili-
tary families, who, when faced with orders to
move, found themselves unable to sell their
homes because of the slow housing market or
because their houses were worth far less than
they owed on their mortgages. Anecdotal
evidence suggests that the mortgage crisis led
many military families to choose living apart
over taking a substantial loss on their home;41
however, we have no research data to show
how widespread this phenomenon is.

Military spouses pay a cost for their fami-
lies’ frequent moves. Cooney and his col-
leagues quantified the earnings penalty that
military spouses pay for frequent moves;
net of other factors, each move is associated

with a 2 percent decline in a spouse’s annual
earnings. Frequent moves also increase the
likelihood of unemployment, particularly for
African American spouses. For each year
in the same location, the likelihood that a
white spouse will have a job increases by
12.2 percent; for African American spouses,
this figure is 56.5 percent.42 Frequent moves
also mean that military spouses earn less
than their civilian counterparts. Among
married women employed full time, for
example, the wage gap between military
and civilian wives ranged from 20 per-
cent to 29 percent, depending on educa-
tion.43 These financial penalties may shape
spouses’ education and employment deci-
sions in the long term.

Military spouses also face employment
challenges caused by the contextual effect
of a large military presence in the places
where they are likely to live. In the labor
markets surrounding military bases, civilian
women experience unemployment rates that
are 2.3 percentage points higher and earn
wages that are 5 percent lower than those of
women in other areas.44 These employment
and wage effects represent the confluence of
several factors, including loss of seniority and
other occupational privileges after a move;
the fact that employers may be reluctant to
hire military spouses because they are likely
to move again soon; and the continuous flood
of military family members into a local labor
market with a limited number of employ-
ers and jobs. (For more about the economic
prospects of military spouses, see the article
in this issue by James Hosek and Shelley
MacDermid Wadsworth.)

Because so many factors limit military
spouses’ employment opportunities, the
military has set up the Spouse Education
and Career Opportunities program, which

2 8 T H E F U T U R E O F C H I L D R E N

Molly Clever and David R. Segal

integrates education and training, career
exploration, career readiness, and career
connections. The Military Spouse Career
Center and Military OneSource provide
counseling to help spouses connect their
education to career opportunities. The My
Career Advancement Accounts program pro-
vides financial assistance to spouses to train
for careers that can easily transfer to a new
location; it also assists with licensure require-
ments for jobs such as nursing and accounting
that have different requirements by state. The
Military Spouse Employment Partnership
links spouses with federal, regional, and local
employers. Despite these helpful programs,
military spouses experience higher levels of
both unemployment and underemployment
than their civilian counterparts. While fewer
than 10 percent of civilian married women
work in a job that is mismatched with their
education level, nearly 40 percent of military
wives do so.45

For children, frequent moves can disrupt
education and bring periods of stressful
acclimation to a new environment where
they may not have any friends and may be
disconnected from school and community
activities. Because of differences among
school districts in the timing and format
of subjects and lessons, children may find
some lessons repetitive, while they may miss
other lessons entirely as they move from one
school to the next. The delay in transferring
school records, which can take weeks or
months, may mean that students are placed
in classes inappropriate to their previous
experiences or ability level. Several public-
private partnerships, such as the Student
Online Achievement Resources program,
help families identify and correct education
gaps associated with frequent moves and
keep deployed parents connected to their
children’s educational progress.

Because the military lifestyle introduces
many sources of stress that most civilian
families do not experience, such as frequent
moves, some counseling and psychological
research in the 1970s began to describe a
“military family syndrome.” According to this
idea, children in military families have more
behavior problems and psychological disor-
ders than their civilian peers.46 The military
family syndrome has since been refuted by
other studies, which suggested that the early
military family syndrome research was meth-
odologically flawed, that children in military
families are at no higher risk of behavioral
problems than civilian children, and that fre-
quent moves in particular can have positive
outcomes by building family cohesion and
resilience.47 However, some evidence indi-
cates that many helping professionals, partic-
ularly those who do not typically interact with
military families, assume that children in mil-
itary families are inherently prone to behav-
ioral problems, leading to stigmatization.48
The idea that military families’ frequent
moves cause behavioral problems in children
does correspond with studies of civilian chil-
dren, which often find that frequent moves

VO L . 2 3 / N O. 2 / FA L L 2 0 1 3 2 9

The Demographics of Military Children and Families

have detrimental effects.49 However, the
context in which military children experience
frequent moves differs in important ways. For
civilian children, frequent moves may hap-
pen because their parents change jobs, like
military parents. But moves may also occur
when parents lose their jobs, or they may be
associated with poverty, homelessness, or
abuse. The supportive military environment
can alleviate some of the stresses associated
with frequent moves by connecting children
to other military children in their communi-
ties, and by helping parents understand the
social strain their children are likely to face
and recognize signs of behavioral problems
early. Evidence suggests that as the number
of moves among military families increases,
parents are more likely to develop positive
attitudes about moving, which increases their
children’s resilience.50 Other factors may have
a stronger impact on military children’s well-
being than how frequently they move; one
study found that family cohesiveness, rela-
tionships with their mothers, and the length
of time they had lived at their current resi-
dence—but not the total number of moves
they had experienced—predicted whether
children said they were lonely, had poor peer
relationships, feared negative evaluations, and
had low self-esteem.51

Although moving is often stressful, it can also
offer excitement and adventure, particularly
for families who have the opportunity to live
in foreign countries, learn new languages,
and experience different cultures.52 For “third
culture kids,” who spend a significant por-
tion of their childhood in foreign countries,
frequent moves and separations from friends
and familiar places is a source of both grief
and strength; these children often report
a strong sense of self and comfort with the
unfamiliar, and they develop strong relation-
ships with their parents.53 Children may also

see moving as an opportunity to change their
behavior and do better in school.54

Guard and Reserve families, who are typi-
cally not attached to a military base and are
more dispersed than active-duty families,
may struggle with isolation from the military
community. The Citizen Soldier Support
Program, which analyzes geographic data
on service members and veterans for the
Veterans Administration and civilian health-
care providers, has found that all but
12 counties in the United States were home
to at least one of the 1.3 million Reserve
members serving in 2012. Moreover, the
approximately 650,000 Reserve members
who have deployed in support of the wars in
Iraq and Afghanistan live in all but 27 coun-
ties.55 This wide geographic dispersion means
that the families of these service members
are typically more isolated from military
resources than are families who live near
large installations.

Family Separations
Family separations due to training exercises
and deployment are another stressful feature
of military life. Children whose parents are
sent on repeated and extended deployments
may have more problems than children
whose parents are deployed for shorter peri-
ods. Grade-school children whose parents
were cumulatively deployed 19 months or
longer over a three-year period did worse
in school than did military children whose
parents had either not deployed or deployed
less than 19 months during the same three
years.56 Similar results were found among
children who attend DoDEA schools.57 This
finding has different implications for dif-
ferent branches of service. In the recent
conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army
has experienced the greatest deployment

3 0 T H E F U T U R E O F C H I L D R E N

Molly Clever and David R. Segal

burden of all service branches. For example,
although the Army contained only 39 percent
of the active-duty force in 2009, it carried
52 percent of troop deployments. In contrast,
the Air Force made up 23 percent of the
active-duty force but carried only 15 percent
of troop deployments.58 Navy deployments
operate on a very different tempo from those
of the other services; sailors typically spend
six months at sea and then six on land. The
military has activated Guard and Reserve
members to a far greater extent in Iraq
and Afghanistan than in previous conflicts;
Guard and Reserve members have accounted
for one-third of all deployments.59

Most studies that examine how parents’
deployment affects children have looked
at children of elementary school age. Few
researchers have studied the effects of
parents’ deployment on infants or high
school-aged children. What information we
have, however, suggests that despite many
similarities, there are important differences
in how deployment affects older children. At
all ages, the wellbeing of the parent who isn’t
deployed is strongly associated with children’s
wellbeing. Cumulative length of deployment
affects older children much as it does younger
children; teenagers have more behavioral
problems as the cumulative length of parental
deployment increases.60 However, the sources
of stress that teenage children face are
somewhat different, and may require differ-
ent responses. While young children typically
experience confusion, loss, and grief when a
parent is deployed, and look to the remaining
parent for support and care, older children
better understand the dangers the deployed
parent faces as well as the challenges that the
remaining parent must deal with at home.

For teenage children, a parent’s deploy-
ment means taking on more responsibilities

at home, including housework and caring
for younger siblings. Teenage children also
feel that they must support the remaining
parent emotionally, and they have to rene-
gotiate their role in the household. When
the deployed parent returns home, there
is more renegotiation, and a teenager who
has had greater responsibility for running
the household may have to relinquish some
elements of control and status. At a sum-
mer camp for teens with a deployed parent,
68 percent said that helping the remaining
parent cope was the most difficult prob-
lem they faced; 54 percent said that when
deployment ended, fitting the returning
parent back in the home routine was their
most difficult problem.61

Just as older children face different sources
of stress than younger children, children in
Guard and Reserve families face different
stresses than those in active-duty families.
Because Guard and Reserve families typi-
cally don’t move as frequently, these children
less often have to change schools and make
new friends. However, Guard and Reserve
families are more likely to face isolation from
the military community. A child may be the
only one in his or her school with a deployed
parent, and teachers and other community
members may not know the issues that
families of a deployed service member face.
Because Guard and Reserve families are less
likely to live near a base, they may not be
aware of or be able to access the resources
and support services that active-duty families
can take for granted. Parents in Guard and
Reserve families whose spouse is deployed
report lower wellbeing and more behavioral
problems among their teenage children than
do their active-duty counterparts.62 Also,
because Guard and Reserve forces have
never been used as extensively as they have in
the post-9/11 era, many Guard and Reserve

VO L . 2 3 / N O. 2 / FA L L 2 0 1 3 3 1

The Demographics of Military Children and Families

family members had not experienced deploy-
ment and were not prepared for it.

Because activated Guard and Reserve mem-
bers are considered to be on active duty,
it’s difficult to disentangle data about these
families from data about regular active-duty
service members, making it hard to see how
their experiences differ. Ideally, a longitu-
dinal study would follow military families
through their various transitions—not only
relocations and deployments, but also as
they move through the active-duty, Guard
and Reserve, and veteran communities. Such
a longitudinal study would help research-
ers, policy makers, and service providers to
better understand the dynamic nature of
military life.

Veteran Families
Although people tend to serve longer now
than they did during the draft era, most
service members do not serve a full career
of 20 years or more. The average length
of service is seven years. In 2011, approxi-
mately 184,000 people left the military;
with 1.4 family members per service mem-
ber, this means that more than 250,000
military family members became veteran
family members.63 As they move into civil-
ian communities, veteran families face new
challenges and opportunities. Most veteran
families remain for a while in the area of
their last duty station, meaning that veteran
families are concentrated in the rural South,
the Eastern Seaboard, and California.64

Most service members are not wounded dur-
ing service and have no long-lasting health
problems. The majority of veteran families
will transition into civilian employment, will
receive their health care through private
insurance, and will not access VA benefits.

However, because warfare has changed in
recent decades, military personnel, veterans,
and their families face different physical and
mental health problems. Improved weapons
and armor mean that service members are
more likely to survive serious injuries than in
the past; however, the reduction in combat
fatalities has been accompanied by a corre-
sponding rise in the number of amputations
and serious physical injuries that require
lifelong care.65 Long-term caretaking often
falls to the spouses, parents, and, later, the
adult children of the veteran, who often
faces multiple sources of emotional, finan-
cial, and family stress. Since Vietnam, the
military has paid greater attention to the
invisible wounds of war, that is, post-
traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and
traumatic brain injuries, which have both
short-term and long-term effects on veterans
and their families. Among personnel who
served in Iraq, reports of depression, anxiety,
and PTSD symptoms increased between
three and 12 months after returning from
deployment.66 For many service members,
therefore, the invisible wounds may not
emerge until months or years after they have
returned from deployment and left military
service. Furthermore, evidence indicates
that symptoms of PTSD can be transferred
to family members.67 Therefore, programs
that seek to help with PTSD and other
mental health problems should take a family-
centered approach and should continue to
reach out to veterans and their families after
they have left service, even if they did not
report mental health problems when they
came home from war.

For most veterans, the transition to civilian
communities means looking for a civil-
ian job. Observers disagree about whether
veterans face discrimination or gain an
advantage in the civilian labor market.

3 2 T H E F U T U R E O F C H I L D R E N

Molly Clever and David R. Segal

But the long recession and the continu-
ing stagnation of the U.S. labor market,
combined with the drawdown from Iraq
and Afghanistan, ensure that veterans will
struggle in the civilian job market for years
to come.68 Veteran unemployment is highest
among males aged 18 to 34, and both male
and female veterans aged 18 to 34 are less
likely than their civilian peers to have a job.
This trend reverses for veterans at age 35
and above; male and female veterans in this
age group are more likely to have a job than
are their civilian peers.69 This may mean
that veteran unemployment is transitional,
that is, veterans experience higher levels
of unemployment when they first leave the
military, but not later in life. On the other
hand, this trend may result from a cohort
effect, in which veterans of the wars in Iraq
and Afghanistan are having more trouble
finding civilian jobs than are veterans of
previous generations. Further research,
informed by a life-course perspective, would
help us resolve this question.

Educational benefits are a primary reason
that many young people join the military, and
limited prospects in the civilian labor mar-
ket spur many veterans to use their GI Bill
education benefits when they leave service,
rather than immediately entering the labor
market. In 2009, Congress made significant
changes to the GI Bill, including a provision
to allow some service members to trans-
fer their education benefits to spouses and
children; this change allowed greater flex-
ibility for those who planned to stay in service
for longer periods and did not plan to go to
college after separation. In the coming years,
we need to keep track of military children
who use their parent’s GI Bill benefits so that
we can understand how this policy change
affects them.

Conclusions
Military policies and programs have increas-
ingly seen family wellbeing as central to
the overall health of the force. Spouses and
children who are happy with military life are
more likely to support a service member’s
decision to stay in the military. To continue
improving the military’s programs and ser-
vices for families, policy makers and service
providers must understand the social context
and needs of military spouses and children.
This article has provided background infor-
mation to help them do so, drawing from
data and research from public, private, and
academic sources. Because a relatively small
proportion of the American population serves
in the all-volunteer force, public knowledge
about the needs of service members and their
families is not likely to come from personal
experience and interaction with service mem-
bers, but rather from surveys, interviews,
and other kinds of data. Those who collect
and interpret this data must understand the
social context in which military families live,
as well as the diverse and dynamic nature
of the military lifestyle. Because military
families come in many forms, and because
they move often and transition among the
active-duty, Guard and Reserve, and civil-
ian communities, longitudinal research that
follows individual families through these
transitions would be best suited to capture
the kind of data we need. In the all-volunteer
era, such data has yet to be collected. This
effort should be a primary focus of military
family research as the drawdown from Iraq
and Afghanistan continues.

As research on military families continues,
several areas need more study and more data.
First, we know that children in military fami-
lies skew relatively young, yet past research
has tended to focus on school-age children,

VO L . 2 3 / N O. 2 / FA L L 2 0 1 3 3 3

The Demographics of Military Children and Families

leaving large gaps in knowledge about infants
and toddlers in military families. In this
issue, Joy D. Osofsky and Lieutenant Colonel
Molinda M. Chartrand tackle some of these
gaps. Yet we need to know more about young
children in military families, including how
they react to frequent moves and what their
educational pathways look like. Second, the
unprecedented post-9/11 use of the Guard
and Reserve has put a spotlight on the unique
challenges faced by families who do not move
with the military and typically don’t live in
communities with a large military presence.
Past research on military families has tended
to exclude Guard and Reserve families,
because there was no expectation that these
families would face widespread deployment.
This oversight has severely limited what we
know about differences between active-duty
and Guard and Reserve families. Finally,
research on military families and veteran
families is not well integrated. Past research
has tended to see these populations as
distinct groups, limiting our ability to under-
stand family transitions among the active-duty,
Guard and Reserve, and veteran populations.
Research on military families should adopt
a dynamic, life-course perspective to bet-
ter understand how military service affects
children who move from one population to
another at different stages of development.

We need research on military families not
only to improve the wellbeing of military
children. This research can also contribute
to the wellbeing of all children. The military
presents a unique environment in which to
understand how various stresses and support
systems affect children’s resilience and devel-
opment. In addition, the wellbeing of mili-
tary families and children is integral to the
successful functioning of our military forces,
and policy makers need accurate and timely
data to respond to these families’ needs and

develop solutions to the problems they face.
Military family members make substantial
sacrifices to support their family member’s
service, and they make important contribu-
tions to the military and civilian communities
they inhabit. As a diminishing share of the
U.S. population serves in the military and
shoulders the burdens of war, all military
family members need to know that, in the
words of first lady Michelle Obama, “they do
live in a grateful nation.”70

How might such gratitude be expressed in
policies and programs? The demographic
research we have reviewed documents the
diversity of our military families, by age,
race, ethnicity, and cultural background.
In particular, we have emphasized how the
family, its forms, and its position within the
military community has changed over time,
suggesting that we need a programmatic
and policy approach that is flexible enough
to adapt to the diversity of military families
and to their continual transformations. We

Past research on military
families has tended to
exclude Guard and Reserve
families, because there was no
expectation that these families
would face widespread
deployment. This oversight
has severely limited what
we know about differences
between active-duty and
Guard and Reserve families.

3 4 T H E F U T U R E O F C H I L D R E N

Molly Clever and David R. Segal

should not compel diverse military families
to fit into a fixed and rigidly structured set of
programs; rather, we should make support
programs accessible to families from all back-
grounds and at all stages of the life course.
For instance, parents and children have very
different needs, and we need programs per-
tinent to the particular lives that are linked
across generations within any family.

In addition, family needs will continue
to change. As more military roles open to
women, for example, more women may
choose to serve and to stay in the military
longer, meaning that more male civil-
ian spouses will need to navigate poli-
cies and programs related to moving and
spousal employment training that have
been designed largely to meet the needs of
military wives. Family Readiness Groups
and other family community service

organizations, which have traditionally been
staffed and operated by the female spouses
of service members, have already begun to
include male spouses, but the repeal of Don’t
Ask Don’t Tell and the increasing legal recog-
nition of same-sex marriages mean that these
groups will need to include spouses from
same-sex families as well.

Creating such nuanced policies and programs
is challenging. But many programs designed
for diverse nonmilitary families have been
well studied and evaluated, and the research
on these programs should help design of
the sort of adaptive and flexible policies we
are calling for. In turn, future evaluation
of adaptive programs for military families
will provide information that can be used to
enhance the lives of all American children
and families.

VO L . 2 3 / N O. 2 / FA L L 2 0 1 3 3 5

The Demographics of Military Children and Families

ENDNOTES

1. Office of the President of the United States, “Strengthening Our Military Families: Meeting America’s
Commitment,” January 2011, http://www.defense.gov/home/features/2011/0111_initiative/strengthen-
ing_our_military_january_2011 ; “Keeping Faith with Our Military Family,” Office of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, accessed January 28, 2013, http://www.jcs.mil/page.aspx?ID=57.

2. Mady Wechsler Segal, “The Military and the Family as Greedy Institutions,” Armed Forces & Society
13, no. 1 (1986): 9–38, doi: 10.1177/0095327X8601300101; Chris Bourg and Mady Wechsler Segal, “The
Impact of Family Supportive Policies and Practices on Organizational Commitment to the Army,” Armed
Forces & Society 25, no. 4 (1999): 633–52, doi: 10.1177/0095327X9902500406.

3. Reuben Hill, Families under Stress (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1949).

4. Sondra Albano, “Military Recognition of Family Concerns: Revolutionary War to 1993,” Armed Forces &
Society 20, no. 2 (1994): 283–302, doi: 10.1177/0095327X9402000207.

5. “Getting the Most from Your Family Readiness Group,” Military OneSource, accessed August 1, 2012,
http://www.militaryonesource.mil.

6. Jay Stanley, Mady Wechsler Segal, and Charlotte Jeanne Laughton, “Grassroots Family Action and Military
Policy Responses,” Marriage & Family Review 15, nos. 3–4 (1990): 207–23.

7. Office of the President of the United States, “Strengthening.”

8. Ryan Kelty, Meredith Kleykamp, and David R. Segal, “The Military and the Transition to Adulthood,” The
Future of Children 20, no. 1 (2010): 181–200.

9. Department of Defense, 2011 Demographics Profile of the Military Community (Washington: Office of the
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, 2012), http://www.militaryonesource.mil/12038/MOS/Reports/2011_
Demographics_Report .

10. Ibid.

11. Ibid.

12. David R. Segal, Recruiting for Uncle Sam: Citizenship and Military Manpower Policy (Lawrence, KS:
University Press of Kansas, 1989); Jay Teachman, Vaughn R. Call, and Mady Wechsler Segal, “The
Selectivity of Military Enlistment,” Journal of Political and Military Sociology 21, no. 2 (1993): 287–309;
Jennifer Hickes Lundquist, “Ethnic and Gender Satisfaction in the Military: The Effect of a Meritocratic
Institution,” American Sociological Review 73, no. 3 (2008): 477–96, doi: 10.1177/000312240807300306.

13. Mady Wechsler Segal, Meridith Hill Thanner, and David R. Segal, “Hispanic and African American Men
and Women in the U.S. Military: Trends in Representation,” Race, Gender & Class 14, nos. 3–4 (2007):
48–64.

14. Office of the Secretary of Defense, Personnel and Readiness, Population Representation in the
Military Services: Fiscal Year 2011, Appendix B, Table B-19, http://prhome.defense.gov/rfm/MPP/
ACCESSION%20POLICY/PopRep2011.

15. Angela R. Febbraro and Ritu M. Gill, “Gender and Military Psychology,” in Handbook of Gender Research
in Social Psychology, Volume 2: Gender Research in Social and Applied Psychology, ed. John C. Chrisler
and Donald R. McReary (New York: Springer, 2010), 671–96.

16. Office of the Secretary of Defense, Personnel and Readiness, Population Representation in the Military
Services.

3 6 T H E F U T U R E O F C H I L D R E N

Molly Clever and David R. Segal

17. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Survey, America’s Families and Living Arrangements:
2010, Table A-1, http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/hh-fam/cps2010.html.

18. Department of Defense, 2011 Demographics Profile.

19. Kelty et al., “The Military and the Transition.”

20. Jennifer Hickes Lundquist, “The Black-White Gap in Marital Dissolution among Young Adults: What
Can a Counterfactual Scenario Tell Us?” Social Problems 53, no. 3 (2006): 421–41, doi: 10.1525/
sp.2006.53.3.421.

21. Volker C. Franke, “Generation X and the Military: A Comparison of Attitudes and Values between West
Point Cadets and College Students,” Journal of Political and Military Sociology 29, no. 1 (Summer 2001):
92–120; Jennifer Hickes Lundquist, “When Race Makes No Difference: Marriage and the Military,” Social
Forces 83, no. 2 (2004): 731–57.

22. Jennifer Hickes Lundquist, “Family Formation among Women in the U.S. Military: Evidence from the
NLSY,” Journal of Marriage and the Family 67 (2005): 1–13, doi: 10.1111/j.0022-2445.2005.00001.x.

23. Jay Teachman, “Military Service, Race, and the Transition to Marriage and Cohabitation,” Journal of
Family Issues 30, no. 10 (2009): 1433–54, doi: 10.1177/0192513X09336338.

24. Kelty et al., “The Military and the Transition.”

25. Paul F. Hogan and Rita Furst Seifert, “Marriage and the Military: Evidence That Those Who
Serve Marry Earlier and Divorce Earlier,” Armed Forces & Society 36, no. 3 (2010): 420–38, doi:
10.1177/0095327X09351228.

26. Ibid.

27. Kelty et al., “The Military and the Transition”; Benjamin R. Karney and John A. Crown, “Families under
Stress: An Assessment of Data, Theory, and Research on Marriage and Divorce in the Military” (Arlington,
VA: RAND Corporation, MG-599-OSD, 2007).

28. Jennifer Lundquist, “Racial Disparities in Preterm Births: A Protective Effect of Military Affiliation?”
University of Massachusetts–Amherst, February 10, 2013.

29. “Demographics,” U.S. Department of Defense Education Activity, accessed January 29, 2013, http://dodea.
edu/aboutDoDEA/demographics.cfm.

30. Military Child Education Coalition, Education of the Military Child in the 21st Century: Current
Dimensions of Educational Experiences for Army Children (Harker Heights, TX: MCEC, 2012),
http://www.militarychild.org/public/upload/images/EMC21-Full_Report .

31. “United States: Workers by Occupational Categories,” Kaiser Family Foundation, accessed August 1, 2012,
http://www.statehealthfacts.org/profileind.jsp?ind=748&cat=1&rgn=1.

32. David R. Segal and Mady Wechsler Segal, “America’s Military Population,” Population Bulletin 59, no. 5
(2004).

33. Department of Defense, 2011 Demographics Profile.

34. Ibid.

35. “America’s Families and Living Arrangements,” U.S. Census Bureau, accessed August 1, 2012,
http://www.census.gov/hhes/families/data/cps2011.html.

36. Segal, “The Military and the Family”; also see Lewis A. Coser, Greedy Institutions: Patterns of Undivided
Commitment (New York: Free Press, 1974).

VO L . 2 3 / N O. 2 / FA L L 2 0 1 3 3 7

The Demographics of Military Children and Families

37. Karin De Angelis and Mady Wechsler Segal, “Transitions in the Military and the Family as Greedy
Institutions: Original Concept and Current Applicability,” in Military Families on Mission, Comparative
Perspectives, ed. Rene Moelker, Manon Andres, Gary L. Bowen, and Philippe Manigart (London:
Routledge, forthcoming).

38. Department of Defense, “Active Duty Military Personnel by Service by Region/Country: Total DoD—
September 30, 2012” (Defense Manpower Data Center, 2012), http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/
MILITARY/miltop.htm.

39. Richard Cooney, Mady Wechsler Segal, and Karin DeAngelis, “Moving with the Military: Race, Class, and
Gender Differences in the Employment Consequences of Tied Migration,” Race, Gender & Class 18,
nos. 1–2 (2011): 360–84.

40. Francesca Adler-Baeder et al., Marital Transitions in Military Families: Their Prevalence and Their
Relevance for Adaptation to the Military (West Lafayette, IN: Military Family Research Institute, Purdue
University, 2005).

41. “Help for Military Homeowners,” National Military Family Association, accessed January 29, 2012,
http://www.militaryfamily.org/speak-up/policy-issues/updates/help-for-military-homeowners.html.

42. Cooney et al., “Moving with the Military.”

43. Mary K. Kniskern and David R. Segal, “Mean Wage and Labor Force Participation Differences between
Civilian and Military Wives,” briefing prepared for the White House Joining Forces Initiative, August 19,
2011.

44. Bradford Booth, “Contextual Effects of Military Presence on Women’s Earnings,” Armed Forces & Society
30, no. 1 (2003): 25–51, doi: 10.1177/0095327X0303000102.

45. Nelson Lim and David Shulker, Measuring Underemployment among Military Spouses (Santa Monica, CA:
RAND Corporation, MG-918-OSD, 2010), http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2010/
RAND_MG918 .

46. D. A. LaGrone, “The Military Family Syndrome,” American Journal of Psychiatry 135 (1978): 1040–3.

47. Peter S. Jensen et al., “The ‘Military Family Syndrome’ Revisited: By the Numbers,” The Journal of
Nervous and Mental Disease 179, no. 2 (1991): 102–7; Amy Reinkober Drummet, Marilyn Coleman, and
Susan Cable, “Military Families under Stress: Implications for Family Life Education,” Family Relations
52, no. 3 (2003): 279–87; Stephen J. Cozza, Ryo S. Chun, and James A. Polo, “Military Families and
Children During Operation Iraqi Freedom,” Psychiatric Quarterly 76, no. 4 (2005): 371–78; Cale Palmer,
“A Theory of Risk and Resilience Factors in Military Families,” Military Psychology 20, no. 3 (2008):
205–17.

48. Drummet et al., “Military Families.”

49. David Wood et al., “Impact of Family Relocation on Children’s Growth, Development, School Function,
and Behavior,” Journal of the American Medical Association 270, no. 11 (1993): 1334–8, doi: 10.1001/
jama.1993.03510110074035; Russell W. Rumberger and Katherine A. Larson, “Student Mobility
and the Increased Risk of High School Dropout,” American Journal of Education 107, no. 1 (1998):
1–35; Tim Jelleyman and Nick Spencer, “Residential Mobility in Childhood and Health Outcomes: A
Systematic Review,” Journal of Epidemiological and Community Health 62 (2008): 584–92, doi: 10.1136/
jech.2007.060103.

50. Eve Graham Weber and David Kevin Weber, “Geographic Relocation Frequency, Resilience, and Military
Adolescent Behavior,” Military Medicine 170, no. 7 (2005): 638–42.

3 8 T H E F U T U R E O F C H I L D R E N

Molly Clever and David R. Segal

51. Michelle L. Kelley, Lisa B. Finkel, and Jayne Ashby, “Geographic Mobility, Family, and Maternal Variables
as Related to the Psychosocial Adjustment of Military Children,” Military Medicine 168 (2009): 1019–24.

52. Ibid.; Kathleen A. Finn Jordan, “Identity Formation and the Adult Third Culture Kid,” in Military Brats
and Other Global Nomads: Growing Up in Organization Families, ed. Morten G. Ender (Westport, CT:
Praeger, 2002), 211–28.

53. Ibid.

54. Karen H. Marchant and Frederic J. Medway, “Adjustment and Achievement Associated with Mobility in
Military Families,” Psychology in the Schools 24 (2007): 289–94.

55. Lt. Col. William R. Abb (Ret.), “Citizen Soldier Support Program: CSSP Mapping and Data Center,”
presentation to the Veterans, Reservists, and Military Families Data and Research Workshop, Washington,
September 26, 2012.

56. Amy Richardson et al., Effects of Soldiers’ Deployment on Children’s Academic Performance and
Behavioral Health (Santa Monica, CA.: RAND Corporation, MG-1095-A, 2011), http://rand.org/content/
dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2011/RAND_MG1095 .

57. Rozlyn C. Engel, Luke B. Gallagher, and David S. Lyle, “Military Deployments and Children’s Academic
Achievement: Evidence from Department of Defense Education Activity Schools,” Economics of
Education Review 29 (2010): 73–82, doi: 10.1016/j.econedurev.2008.12.003.

58. Timothy M. Bonds, Dave Baiocchi, and Laurie L. McDonald, “Army Deployments to OIF and OEF”
(Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, DB-587-A), http://rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/documented_
briefings/2010/RAND_DB587 .

59. Lawrence J. Korb and David R. Segal, “Manning and Financing the Twenty-First Century All-Volunteer
Force,” Daedalus 140, no. 3 (Summer 2011): 75–87; Michael Waterhouse and JoAnne O’Bryant, “National
Guard Personnel and Deployments: Fact Sheet” (Washington: Congressional Research Service, 2008).

60. Anita Chandra et al., Views from the Homefront: The Experiences of Youth and Spouses from Military
Families (Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, TR-913-NMFA), http://www.rand.org/content/dam/
rand/pubs/technical_reports/2011/RAND_TR913 .

61. Ibid.

62. Ibid.

63. Department of Defense, 2011 Demographics Profile.

64. National Center for Veterans Analysis and Statistics, “Veteran Population by State,” accessed August 1,
2012, http://www.va.gov/vetdata/docs/Maps/VetPop_State .

65. Anne Leland and Mari-Jana “M-J” Oborocenau, American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists
and Statistics (Washington: Congressional Research Office, 2010), http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/
RL32492 .

66. Terri Tanielian and Lisa H. Jaycox, The Invisible Wounds of War: Psychological and Cognitive Injuries,
Their Consequences, and Services to Assist Recovery (Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, MG-720-
CCF, 2008), http://rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2008/RAND_MG720 .

VO L . 2 3 / N O. 2 / FA L L 2 0 1 3 3 9

The Demographics of Military Children and Families

67. Tara Galovski and Judith A Lyons, “Psychological Sequelae of Combat Violence: A Review of the Impact
of PTSD on the Veteran’s Family and Possible Interventions,” Aggression and Violent Behavior 9, no. 5
(August 2004): 477–501, doi: 10.1016/S1359-1789(03)00045-4; Rachel Dekel and Hadass Goldblatt, “Is
There Intergenerational Transmission of Trauma? The Case of Combat Veterans’ Children,” American
Journal of Orthopsychiatry 78, no. 3 (July 2008): 281–89, doi: 10.1037/a0013955.

68. Meredith Kleykamp, “A Great Place to Start? The Effect of Prior Military Service on Hiring,” Armed
Forces & Society 35, no. 2 (January 2009): 266–85, doi: 10.1177/0095327X07308631.

69. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Employment Situation of Veterans—2011,” news release, March 20, 2012,
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/vet .

70. Office of the First Lady, “Remarks by the First Lady and Dr. Biden at the Joining Forces Anniversary
Event,” news release, April 11, 2012, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/04/11/
remarks-first-lady-and-dr-biden-joining-forces-anniversary-event.

Copyright of Future of Children is the property of Future of Children and its content may not
be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.

Turn in your highest-quality paper
Get a qualified writer to help you with

“ Decision-Making ”

Get high-quality paper

NEW! AI matching with writer

Hire a Writer

Client Reviews

4.9

Sitejabber

4.6

Trustpilot

4.8

Our Guarantees

100% Confidentiality

Information about customers is confidential and never disclosed to third parties.

Original Writing

We complete all papers from scratch. You can get a plagiarism report.

Timely Delivery

No missed deadlines – 97% of assignments are completed in time.

Money Back

If you're confident that a writer didn't follow your order details, ask for a refund.

New to Your Trusted Assignment Help Service? Sign up & Save

Calculate the price of your order

Type of paper needed:

Pages:

You will get a personal manager and a discount.

Academic level:

We'll send you the first draft for approval by at

Total price:

$0.00

Power up Your Academic Success with the
Team of Professionals. We’ve Got Your Back.

Power up Your Study Success with Experts We’ve Got Your Back.

Order Now Order Now