usafnnfr.gif

Partner Violence in Military Families

Carolyn M. West
Family Research Laboratory, University of New Hampshire
Copyright Information

Introduction

Military service is not simply a job. It is a selection of a lifestyle that has implications for almost every aspect of an individual's life. As the number of married service members increase, more couples face the challenge of balancing military duties and family obligations. Although the majority of military families cope reasonably well and are satisfied with military life, a substantial percentage are at risk for partner violence (Jensen, Lewis, & Xenakis, 1986; Miller & Veltkamp, 1993).

This chapter will review the research in this area. First, there will be a brief description of the stressors and advantages associated with military service. The next sections will focus on the incidence and characteristics of military partner violence as well as characteristics that contribute to abuse in this population. Help sources and barriers to treatment will also be addressed.

Description of the population

There are currently over 800,000 married couples in all the branches of the armed services (Caliber Associates, 1994). The military requires service members and their families to make many personal and family sacrifices to accommodate the work mission, such as relocations, long work hours, frequent family separations, and dangerous work assignments. For some couples these demands can become potential stressors and lead to marital conflict. Given the youthfulness of this population, these stressors can be compounded by the normal problems of late adolescence and early adulthood (Ursano, Holloway, Jones, Rodriguez, & Belenky, 1989). At the same time, the military provides social, economic, and psychological benefits that might not be available to those families in the civilian world, including job security and social support (Segal, 1989).

The purpose of this section is to briefly describe common military family stressors. Of course, these stressors may vary as a function of location, nature of the military unit and its mission, and type of job performed (Segal, 1989). The reader should not assume that all families experience these circumstances. Next, the advantages of the military life style will be highlighted.

Military family stressors

Geographic mobility. For some families the opportunity to travel is an advantage of military service. Others, however, experience frequent moves, with accompanying housing, employment, school and community changes, as a disruption to family life. Families may experience economic difficulties when the civilian spouse is unable to find employment upon relocation. Distance from family and friends can also create a sense of isolation. Overseas assignments bring additional challenges as the family adjusts to unfamiliar customs and values (Segal, 1989; Ursano, et al., 1989).

Long working hours. The service member often does not have control over his/her time. Long and erratic work schedules of the service member can interfere with recreational plans, the spouse's employment, and family obligations (Segal, 1989). Air Force wives may attempt to accommodate their husband's shiftwork in a variety of ways, including rearranging meals and taking on more household responsibilities. As a result, many wives share symptoms of their husbands' work-related stress, in the form of lost sleep, digestive disorders, and irritability (Hertz & Charlton, 1989).

Separations. Military service often requires long separations from family members. In peacetime, military schooling, sea duty, and work assignments that do not allow family members to relocate with the service members may require families to be apart. Depending on the job, a service member may be gone for months with little contact with family members. Separations due to deployment create additional stressors including assumption of new family roles by the partner left behind, disruption of family routines, uncertainty about the service members safety, and inability to plan for the future (Blount & Curry, 1992; Figley, 1993; Segal, 1989).

Dangerous work assignments. Military personnel often face the risk of injury or death in the course of performing their duties. Although the risk is great during deployment, peacetime military maneuvers also entail the potential for injury. Consequently, worry about a service member's safety is an ongoing concern (Figley, 1993; Segal, 1989).

Masculine culture and structure. The military is characterized by a male-dominated, authoritarian, hierarchal organization. The lack of autonomy associated with this structure has been hypothesized to create difficulties for military families. Evidence to support this contention, however, is based primarily on anecdotal reports. Jensen (1986) concludes that this environment benefits some families, possibly by offering a sense of stability and structure, while other families feel hindered by the military culture. Solider's rank and duty assignment are posited to influence adjustment to this culture. For example, among Army physicians higher rank and more administrative responsibilities were associated with greater satisfaction with the military (Blount, LeClair, Miser, Maness, Schirner, Weightman, et al., 1995).

Normative constraints. The behavior of family members reflects on both the service member and the military. There are certainly benefits when military wives and family members incorporate the military norms and customs, such as respect for higher ranking officers. Because spouses and children are often perceived to informally carry the rank of the military member, their sense of status and social identity may be enhanced as the service member makes career advances. Other families may be resentful and perceive these expectations as burdensome and stressful (Segal, 1989).

Military downsizing. Due to reductions by the Pentagon, in the next few years U.S. troop levels are expected to fall to their lowest since 1950 and military spending to its lowest level since 1939 (Richards & Bowen, 1993). This current downsizing is also taking place during a similar decline in the economy. These economic changes are likely to have a greater impact on ethnic minorities. In the Army Experience Survey (Westat Inc., 1986) more than half of the Black and Hispanic veterans found it difficult to find full time employment after leaving the Army. While, one-third of the Anglo American participants in this study found it difficult to obtain work. Consequently, many service members, particularly ethnic minorities, will be facing stressors associated with unemployment upon separation from the military (Richards & Bowen, 1993).

Advantages of military life style to families

Job security. Despite the threat of downsizing, military families generally enjoy the benefits of economic and employment security. They also have access to health care, housing, and child care services, which help mediate the effects of previously discussed stressors. Job security can also protect military families against structural inequalities, such as unemployment and lack of educational opportunities, that place civilian families at risk for partner violence (Schwabe & Kaslow, 1984).

Equal opportunity. Historically, the military has served as an avenue to educational and economic opportunities. As one of the few racially integrated societal institutions, the military has been able to attract a disproportional rate of ethnic minorities. For example, while African Americans comprise 12% of the total U.S. population, they comprise 31% of the enlisted Army personnel (Richards & Bowen, 1993). The military has also provided alternative employment and training opportunities to traditional universities and civilian jobs (Owens, 1992; Teachman, Call, & Segal, 1993).

Social support. The military environment offers a strong social system for families. Not only do families have the support of neighbors and friends, they also have support from the institution. Because domestic problems have implications for the entire unit, Commanders and First Sergeants are invested in the well-being of the family. Their willingness to intervene can reduce the sense of isolation and lack of social support, thereby decreasing the risk for partner violence (A. L. Brewster, personal communication, March, 14, 1996) (Segal, 1989).

Formal help sources. Service branches have instituted a number of programs, such as Family Advocacy Programs (FAP), designed to help military families cope with family problems, including partner violence (McNelis & Awalt, 1986). These programs include marital and group therapy, stress and anger management, and alcohol counseling (Brewster, 1996).

In conclusion, military families demonstrate tremendous resilience and effective coping strategies. Although long work hours, dangerous assignments, frequent moves, and family separation can create stressors, the military also offers many opportunities and resources that act as buffers against family problems (Figley, 1993; Segal, 1989).

Incidence of military partner violence

Many studies on military partner violence are based on couples mandated for treatment (Cantos, Neidig, & O'Leary, 1993), severely violent couples (Langhinrichsen-Rohling, Neidig, & Thorn, 1995), clinical data (Kaslow & Ridenour, 1984; Miller & Veltkamp, 1993), and samples as small as 36 batterers (Petrik, Gildersleeve-High, McEllistrem, & Subotnik, 1994a; Petrik, Olson, & Subotnik, 1994b). As programs have been implemented to address violence, the military has started to conduct extensive research in this area. For example, the Air Force maintains a large database, which contains hundreds of variables, on the characteristics of partner abuse (Brewster, 1996).

A series of large, comprehensive studies on military partner violence were also conducted by the Department of Defense (DoD) and Family Advocacy Programs (FAP). These studies consisted of three components:

This chapter will highlight these larger studies. Although studies in the general partner violence literature are based on smaller samples, they also provide information on the characteristics of military partner assault. This research will be reviewed as well.

What is the incidence of partner violence in the military?

In 1995 the incidence rate of military partner violence for all branches of the service (Air Force, Army, Navy, Marine Corps) was 19 per 1000 couples (Caliber Associates, 1994). According to data trends, reports and incidence have increased due to:

However, the rate of substantiated cases have decreased because at risk couples are being detected before abuse has occurred (Department of Defense, 1996).

What are the demographic characteristics of the violent military couple?

The demographic profile of violent military couples was generally consistent across studies. Both violent husbands and wives were typically in their late to middle 20s (Cantos, et al., 1993; Langhinrichsen-Rohling, et al., 1995; Wasileski, Callaghan-Chaffee, & Chaffee, 1982). The mean age of perpetrators was 27 in one study (Brewster, 1996). A similar age pattern was found by Caliber Associates (1994) . Approximately half of abusers and victims were 25 or younger, while about one-third were between the ages of 26 and 35. Less than 10% of violent couples were over the age of 35.

In a substantial percentage of cases, partner violence occurred in relatively new marriages with children (Brewster, 1996; Wasileski, et al., 1982). Couples mandated for treatment at military installations had been married an average of 3 years (Cantos, et al., 1993; Langhinrichsen-Rohling, et al., 1995). Larger military sponsored studies revealed a similar pattern of abuse in young marriages. More than half (57%) of the victims in the Caliber (1994) study were married for two years or less, while only 7% had been married for more than 10 years. Many violent couples had children. More than three quarters of victims in one study were parents (Caliber Associates, 1994).

Most victims of military partner violence were educated, having at least a high school diploma (Cantos, et al., 1993; Langhinrichsen-Rohling, et al., 1995). Almost half of victims were high school graduates, while approximately one-third had completed college courses or earned a two year degree. Many female victims were also employed full- or part-time, in either the civilian work force (42%) or as active duty service members (18%) (Caliber Associates, 1994).

A similar educational background was found for abusers, with 60% being high school graduates and more than one-third having some college education (Brewster, 1996). With the exception of one study (Cronin, 1995), most studies found that the majority of batterers were recently enlisted men in the lower pay grades (Shupe, Stacey, & Hazlewood, 1987; Wasileski, et al., 1982). Caliber Associates (1994) found that the majority (69%) of batterers were enlisted men in the E4 to E6 paygrades. Only 2% were officers. Almost one- third of abusers had been in the military three years or less, while one-quarter had been in the military between four to six years. Only 3% had been in the military for 19 years or more.

What are the characteristics of military partner violence?

Types of abuse. Partner assault primarily took the form of physical aggression in military couples. More than 85% of the couples in the Air Force FAP reported physical abuse, which ranged from pushing and shoving to actual murder. Approximately 14% involved emotional abuse, such as name calling and emotional control. Sexual abuse cases accounted for fewer than half of one percent of reported cases (Brewster, 1996). A similar pattern was found in the Victim Intake Survey. Physical abuse accounted for the majority (81%) of cases, while the remainder involved emotional abuse/neglect (7%) or multiple forms of physical, sexual and emotional abuse (12%) (Caliber Associates, 1994).

Gender differences. The majority of substantiated cases of partner violence in the military involve male aggressors. In a large study on Air Force partner violence, 72% of over 2,000 cases involved male perpetrators (Brewster, 1996). In contrast, more women reported being victims of violence in military couples. For example, in the 895 cases of Air Force partner violence examined by Mollerstrom (1992) , 72% of the victims were female. An even higher percentage of the victims were female in another military sponsored study. In a sample of 482 victims of partner abuse, 93% were female (Caliber Associates, 1994).

Severity of abuse. Less severe violence was reported in military sponsored studies. In the Victim Intake Survey, more than half (57%) of the cases involved "mild" physical violence. In these cases the physical injury was minor and no medical treatment was required. Approximately one-third were classified as "moderate" cases, characterized by physical injury requiring short term medical treatment. While only 3% were identified as "severe", with major physical injuries requiring long term medical treatment or inpatient care (Caliber Associates, 1994). This pattern of severity was also found in other military sponsored surveys, with approximately half of the cases rated as "low in severity" and one- third rated as "moderate severity" (Mollerstrom, et al., 1992).

Longitudinal research on the Air Force indicates that the severity of spouse abuse over the past five years has declined significantly. Whether this decline reflects a greater awareness and subsequent earlier reporting society wide or is a function of the Air Force prevention initiatives is not clear (A. Brewster, personal communication, December 8, 1996).

The prevalence of less injurious violence in the previously discussed studies, contradict the findings of smaller clinical studies. For example, in a shelter sample of 231 military couples, four in ten military batterers used weapons, such as guns and knives, as well as lamps and belts against their wives (Shupe, et al., 1987). Langhinrichsen-Rohling and colleagues (1995) found substantial rates for severe violence for both men and women in a sample of military couples mandated for treatment. More than half of husbands and 37% of wives in their study inflicted severe assault, defined as strangled, beat up, forced sex, or threatened or used a weapon. Severe violence perpetrated by females should not be ignored, however, several caveat are in order. First, larger military sponsored studies revealed that women were more likely to be victims, rather than aggressors, of severe violence. Among participants in a Air Force Family Advocacy Program, severe violence was perpetrated by significantly more men than women (A. Brewster, personal communication, December 8, 1996). Second, Langhinrichsen-Rohling and colleagues (1995) did not ascertain the percentage of female violence perpetrated as self-defense or gender differences in the rate of injury.

Injuries. Military wives reported more injuries than husbands (Wasileski, et al., 1982). In a sample of 180 military couples who were mandated for treatment, the wife reported receiving injuries when the husband did not in 38% of the couples, whereas the husband reported being the sole person injured in only 5% of the couples (Cantos, Neidig, & O'Leary, 1994). Injuries sustained by women also tended to be more severe. In a similar treatment sample, almost one quarter of women required medical attention, while only 2% of men needed such assistance (Cantos, et al., 1993).

Duration of abuse. A large percentage of couples sought help after the first violent episode. Almost half of military abuse cases in the Victim Intake Survey involved either first time victims or victims who had been abused for six months or less, while one-quarter of the wives had been abused for two years or more (Caliber Associates, 1994). Other couples had a history of repeated abuse before presenting for treatment. Ten percent of an Air Force sample of FAP participants reported a previous substantiated case of partner abuse (Brewster, 1996; Mollerstrom, et al., 1992). Evidence from smaller clinical samples suggests even higher rate of recidivism. For example, in a sample of 60 military couples mandated for treatment, 97% of victims revealed prior episodes of violence. This violence did not always stop once the couple was separated. Ten percent of the victims were divorced or living apart when treatment was sought (Wasileski, et al., 1982).

In conclusion, physical violence is most frequently reported, followed by emotional and sexual abuse (Mollerstrom, et al., 1992). In military sponsored studies, couples presented for therapy in the earlier stages of the abuse with less severe violence (Caliber Associates, 1994). A different profile emerged for violent couples in smaller clinical samples. Couples in these studies reported a prior history of abuse characterized by severe violence and injuries (Wasileski, et al., 1982). Sampling differences may partially account for these discrepant findings. Abuse cases reported by Caliber Associates (1994) study were often the first occurrence of violence, while clinical samples frequently included more severely violent participants (Langhinrichsen-Rohling, et al., 1995), thus accounting for the high rates of recidivism and injuries.

Are military families more violent than civilian families?

There is limited research that indicates that military families are more violent than civilian counterparts. It should not be assumed that military families do not appear to be inherently more violent than their civilian counterparts. Rather, the findings of these studies should be interpreted with extreme caution. For example, Bohannon and Associates (1995) found that the rate of violence was higher in their sample of 94 military couples in comparison to couples in the Second National Family Violence Survey (57% vs. 16%) (Straus & Gelles, 1986). Violence among military couples also appears to be more severe. In a treatment sample of 180 military couples, both women and men (21% and 4%) required more medical attention than civilian couples (3% and 0.4%) in the previous mentioned national family violence survey (Cantos, et al., 1994). Similarly, in a shelter sample wives of soldiers sustained more severe violence and injuries than civilian wives. Specifically, soldiers were twice as likely as civilian husbands to use weapons against their wives (Shupe, et al., 1987). Higher rates of violence were also reported in a clinical samples of 60 maritally distressed couples, with 23% of military wives being hit by husbands compared to 3% of their civilian counterparts (Griffin & Morgan, 1988). Additionally, students from military backgrounds reported higher rates of parental spousal violence, such as slapping, hair pulling, throwing objects, and pushing than students from civilian backgrounds (Cronin, 1995).

These findings should be interpreted with caution, however. Children may not witness all parental conflict. Consequently, percentages of parental partner violence based on student accounts may be less than accurate (Cronin, 1995). Sampling differences may also explain the higher percentage of military violence. Alternatively stated, military couples who are mandated for treatment (Cantos, et al., 1994) or shelter residents (Shupe, et al., 1987) do not represent the vast majority of violent military couples. Severely violent and maritally distressed couples are overrepresented in these samples. To then compare these military couples to civilian couples in a national probability sample is inappropriate because the two samples are not comparable (Bohannon & Dosser, 1995).

What factors contribute to military family violence?

The question of whether military families are more violent is far too simplistic. Several risk factors for partner violence are not unique to military couples. For instance, violence in the family of origin and substance abuse are linked to wife assaults in military (Brewster, 1996; Cantos, et al., 1993; Langhinrichsen-Rohling, et al., 1995; Mollerstrom, et al., 1992) and civilian families (Kaufman Kantor & Straus, 1987). Given the special circumstances of military families, additional factors must be considered. The demographic makeup of the military may partially explain violence in military families. Stated differently, military families are not inherently more violent. Rather, groups that are at greater risk for violence, such as young adults and ethnic minorities, are overrepresented in the military. Characteristics of the military environment must also be included in this analysis. As previously discussed, military families face distinctive challenges, including exposure to combat and aspects of the military culture that civilian families do not address. These unique stressors have been linked to partner violence (Hiley-Young, Blake, Abueg, Rozynko, & Gusman, 1995; Neidig, Friedman, & Collins, 1986).

Demographic factors

Higher rates of partner violence can be partially explained by the demographic incomparability between civilian and military populations. A study of 3,762 married military personnel and 3,044 married civilians revealed that the populations were not comparable on youthfulness, racial composition, and gender. The military sample was younger, had a overrepresentation of African Americans, and a lower representation of women than the general population. When analysis controlled for this, the Army rate of partner abuse was only slightly higher than the civilian rate (13.3% vs. 10.6%) (Caliber Associates, 1996). Physical violence has also been shown to vary by service member's rank (Caliber Associates, 1994). These demographic factors will be reviewed in the following section.

Age. Approximately one-third of Air Force personnel are below the age of 26 (A. L. Brewster, personal communication, March 14, 1996). This is the age group most at risk for partner violence in the civilian population (Suitor, Pillemer, & Straus, 1990). Thus, the youthfulness of the military couple, as compared to the civilian population, may explain their higher rates of abuse.

Race. While the majority (63%) of military batterers are Anglo American men (Brewster, 1996), half the abusers surveyed in some studies were African American (Caliber Associates, 1994; Cantos, et al., 1994; Langhinrichsen-Rohling, et al., 1995; Shupe, et al., 1987). This means that Blacks are overrepresented among military batterers. For example, Blacks constituted 15% of the Air Force (A. L. Brewster, personal communication, March 14, 1996) however, they were 28% of the batterers in FAP programs (Brewster, 1996). Factors that contribute to higher rates of partner violence in Black civilian families, including youthfulness, lower social class, and lower occupational and employment status, apply here as well.

There is some evidence that inter-racial military couples may be at risk for violence. A shelter sample, for example, found that one in five violent military families involved interracial couples (52 out of 236) (Shupe, et al., 1987). A clinical sample of 60 couples enrolled in a FAP program reported a similar pattern. Specifically, one-third of the violent couples involved Malaysian women with Anglo or Black husbands (Wasileski, et al., 1982). Evidence based on anecdotal reports suggests that foreign brides of military servicemen are also at risk for violence (Anderson, 1993; Lai, 1986). An Army social worker concluded that:

In any intercultural marriage differences in norms, values, expectations, and habits may lead to tension and conflict. Social pressures (i.e., discrimination) are sometimes an additional burden to the inter-racial couple. The foreign-born may not only have to deal with an alien environment, but also with a language barrier. Couples who are unable to communicate verbally seem more likely in some cases to resort to physical means of expressing displeasure and frustration (cited in (Shupe, et al., 1987)). Based on the limited research we can not conclude that interracial marriages are more violent. However, the couple may face additional stressors that in turn increase the potential for resolving conflicts with physical violence. More research needs to be conducted before conclusions can be drawn.

Rank. The majority of batterers were enlisted men in the lower paygrades, while few were officers (Brewster, 1996; Caliber Associates, 1994; Shupe, et al., 1987; Wasileski, et al., 1982. The overrepresentation of abusers among lower ranking service members has been explained by several factors. Some researchers suspect that wives of officers underreport their abuse. Their greater investment in their husband's career may make them unwilling to jeopardize it by reporting abuse (Caliber Associates, 1994). Researchers also hypothesized that the military was more likely to conceal partner violence perpetrated by high ranking service members (Shupe, et al., 1987; Wasileski, et al., 1982). It seems unlikely that these factors solely account for the association between lower pay grade and partner violence.

Violence among the lower ranks may also reflect demographic differences. For example, minorities are often concentrated in the lower ranks (Knouse, 1991). Therefore, pay grade may be highly confounded with age, race, and education. If young, less educated, ethnic minorities, are overrepresented among the lower ranks, this might partially account for much of the partner violence. More research needs to explore the correlation between these demographic characteristics, rank, and partner violence before firm conclusions can be drawn.

Characteristic of the military life style

The majority of violent couples mandated for treatment scored in the distressed level on marital adjustment scales (Cantos, et al., 1994). Abusive military husbands reported less marital satisfaction than their nonabusive counterparts as measured by the Index of Marital Satisfaction Marital (Hurlbert, Whittaker, & Munoz, 1991). In a treatment sample of violent military couples, marital distress were characterized by inability to reach agreement on important issues (Neidig, et al., 1986). Both relationship dissatisfaction and partner violence has been linked to family stressors (Caliber Associates, 1994), the military environment (Jensen, et al., 1986), and war related trauma (Hiley-Young, et al., 1995).

Military family stressors. Common precipitating factors of violence in military families include accumulation of stress on the batterer due to (Caliber Associates, 1994):

Empirical studies support these precipitating factors. Both batterers and victims experienced significantly more stressful events, as measured by the Holmes and Rahe Social Readjustment Rating Scale (Neidig, et al., 1986). On the aforementioned scale, an average of six stressful family problems were reported by victims in a military treatment program. The most frequently reported concerns included increased arguments with partner, sexual difficulties, and health problems (Wasileski, et al., 1982). In contrast, work and financial concerns were most frequently cited as problems by violent men (Wasileski, et al., 1982). There is also evidence that the severity of violence increased as a function of length of time on the job, suggesting work related stress experienced by the batterer (Neidig, et al., 1986). Given the demands of the military work schedule, it is not surprising that maritally distressed military wives more often requested that their husbands not work than civilian wives (Griffin & Morgan, 1988). Although no studies could be located that linked increased levels of violence to deployment and reunions, the stressors associated with these periods have been well documented (Blount & Curry, 1992; Figley, 1993). Due to the difficulty of these transitions, it is likely that some families may experience violence.

Military environment. The acceptance of violence, male dominance, and hierarchal structure, characteristics commonly associated with the military environment, have been theoretically linked to increased rates of wife assaults (Jensen, et al., 1986). One study found no significant differences between abusive and nonabusive military husbands on measures of traditional attitudes toward women, authoritarianism, and dogmatism (Neidig, et al., 1986). However, when 60 abusive soldiers were demographically matched on age, education, length of marriage, and military rank, with a comparison group of maritally distressed nonviolent soldiers, significant differences on these traits did emerge. Batterers exhibited more type A behavior, characterized by competition, aggressiveness, hostility and traditional attitudes toward women (Hurlbert, et al., 1991). Powerlessness and the need to control were also frequently reported by a sample of 36 veterans enrolled in a 6-month outpatient partner violence treatment program (Petrik, et al., 1994b). Although some researchers argue that the military environment fosters these traditional beliefs, others contend that authoritarian, violent prone men select the military life style (Shupe, et al., 1987). This debate cannot be resolved based on the available evidence. Nevertheless, there appears to be a connection between these traits and partner violence. This area certainly warrants further research.

War-related trauma. Several studies have found an association between Post- Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and wife assaults. In a sample of 177 Army and Marine veterans hospitalized for PTSD, more than half reported violence against their wives since their discharge from the military. Participation in killing during the Vietnam war was a significant predictor of wife assault (Hiley-Young, et al., 1995). Similarly, Jordan and colleagues (1992) found that partner violence, inflicted by both the veteran and his partner, was more prevalent when husbands had PTSD.

It should also be noted that researchers have found an association between precombat physical and sexual abuse and combat related PTSD (Engel, Engel, Campbell, McFall, Russo, & Katon, 1993). Specifically, Vietnam veterans diagnosed with PTSD and other psychiatric disorders evidenced higher rates of childhood physical abuse and other forms of traumatic events prior to their military service than veterans without PTSD. This association persisted after controlling for the differences in level of combat exposure between the two groups (Bremner, Southwick, Johnson, Yehuda, & Charney, 1993; Brown & Anderson, 1991). Moreover, in a sample of 218 maritally assaultive veterans in alcohol rehabilitation treatment, a dysfunctional family of origin, characterized by violence and parental alcoholism, and a history of arrest, rather than military combat, were associated with higher rates of wife assaults (Gondolf & Foster, 1991). Using data from 2,000 Vietnam veterans Gimbel & Booth (1994) concluded that combat decreases marital quality and stability in several ways:

Of course, exposure to combat is not always directly associated with subsequent family conflict and marital dissatisfaction (Hendrix, Jurich, & Schumm, 1995). Previous traumas, such as experiencing child physical or sexual abuse (Engel, et al., 1993), appear to mediate the link between wife assault and combat related PTSD.

Based on the research available, military families do not appear to be inherently more violent than their civilian counterparts. Instead, higher rates of partner violence may reflect the high representations of young adults and minorities in the military ranks. Family stressors, in some cases war-related trauma, and characteristics associated with the military environment can also contribute to violent behavior.

Therapeutic implications

The treatment goals for military families are often similar to those for civilian families. Some general therapeutic objectives include:

Specific treatment suggestions have also been made for military families. They include:

As previously discussed, the military has an investment in the well-being of family members. As a consequence, programs have been implemented to address family problems. The purpose of this section is to review the literature on service utilization among military families. Barriers to help seeking will also be addressed.

What help sources are available for military families?

The Family Advocacy Program, designed to identify, report, assess, and treat distressed families, has been existence for more than 15 years (Mollerstrom, et al., 1992). The Air Force Family Advocacy Program, unlike the Army or Navy, is managed from the Office of the Surgeon General of the Air Force. At the installation level, the commander of the medical facility is responsible for oversight of the program and chairs the installation Family Advocacy Committee. A social work officer serves as the Family Advocacy Officer (FAO). He or she has day-to-day responsibility for program operations. The outreach component includes staff responsible for primary and secondary prevention and education services. Treatment services for maltreatment cases are provided by FAP staff or other services providers on base or locally, as appropriate. The Air Force FAP also includes a research component designed to study treatment efficacy (Brewster, 1996). This treatment approach has several strengths, including mandatory reporting and assessment, the ability to monitor service members treatment, and involvement of commanders. Importantly, it was also perceived as an positive resource (Caliber Associates, 1994). Two thirds of batterers and the majority of victims 88% were satisfied with the FAP, while over 90% of participants evaluated the services as "good" or "very good" (Brewster, 1996).

Since the program operates under the auspices of the Air Force Medical services, the primary referral sources are medical personnel, followed by commanders/first sergeants, and security police (Brewster, 1996). After referral, more than half of participants in the Victim Intake Survey requested marriage counseling from the FAP (Caliber Associates, 1994). As requested, this was the most frequently form of therapy provided by the Air Force FAP. Although this form of therapy was commonly utilized, victims and abusers took advantages of a broad range of services provided by the Air Force FAP. They included (Brewster, 1996):