扒哥吃瓜

List of abbreviations

DPIA Data Protection Impact Assessment

FamSec Families Section

GDPR General Data Protection Regulation

GSR Government Social Research(ers)聽

JPA Joint Personnel Administration

LTR(E) Established Long-Term Relationship

MOD Ministry of Defence

RAF Royal Air Force

RN Royal Navy

SFA Service Families Accommodation

SP Service personnel

VfM Value for Money

Summary

In January 2024, the Ministry of Defence (MOD) launched the 鈥楢ccompanied Established Long-Term Relationships (LTR(E)) Overseas Pilot鈥�. The pilot allows Service personnel (SP) in LTR(E) at selected overseas bases to be accompanied by their long-term partner and receive a bespoke allowance package. A one-year evaluation of the pilot was commissioned by the MOD Overseas Accommodation Policy Team. Further information about the pilot and evaluation can be found in the Evaluation Summary Paper.

The pilot evaluation was informed by research activities undertaken throughout the first year of implementation up to May 2025. Focus groups were undertaken with the Chain of Command at bases in Cyprus. They provided insight into the implementation and impact of the pilot on SP and operations.

Evidence from the focus groups indicates that the pilot has positively affected SP morale, maintained operational effectiveness, encouraged SP to volunteer overseas and reduced pressures to marry pre-deployment. In addition, there was noted community and unit cohesion between LTR(E) SP and partners and the wider Armed Forces community. The focus groups also highlighted parity of treatment with LTR(E) couples receiving entitled allowances and housing the same as married/civil partnered SP.

Areas for improvement identified include communication of the pilot, inclusion of FamSec into the pilot process and providing more clarity on preserved rights. Some concern was raised regarding partner employment and isolation, access to childcare and transportation and insufficient overseas allowances. These issues are not specific to the pilot and fall beyond the scope of the pilot.

1. Introduction

In January 2024, the Overseas Accommodation Policy Team within the Ministry of Defence (MOD) launched the 鈥楢ccompanied Established Long-Term Relationship (LTR(E)) Overseas Pilot鈥�. The pilot allows Service personnel (SP) in LTR(E) at selected overseas bases to be accompanied by their long-term partner and receive a bespoke allowance package.

The pilot contributes towards commitments and recommendations outlined in the 2015 and 2025 Strategic Defence Review to widen accommodation entitlements for SP in LTR(E) to recruit and retain individuals in the UK Armed Forces.

A one-year evaluation of the pilot was commissioned by the MOD Overseas Accommodation Policy Team. The evaluation objectives were to understand the extent to which the pilot:

1. was implemented as intended.
2. contributed to the intended outcomes associated with improving the offer for SP in LTR(E).
3. contributed to any unintended outcomes.
4. was delivered economically, efficiently, effectively and equitably to achieve value for money.

To meet each objective, a process, impact and value-for-money (VfM) evaluation was undertaken. Further information about the pilot can be found in the Evaluation Summary Paper which can be found聽via the聽Accompanied established long-term relationships overseas pilot evaluation landing page.

The pilot evaluation was informed by research activities undertaken throughout the first year of implementation up to May 2025.

Focus groups were undertaken with the Chain of Command at bases in Cyprus. Within a military setting, senior members with line management responsibility who oversee day-to-day operations and tasks for junior SP in their unit are referred to as the 鈥楥hain of Command鈥�. The Chain of Command was identified as an important source of information about the implementation, operation and impact of the pilot on unit cohesion, morale and operational effectiveness. In addition, these personnel may be aware of nuanced issues or feedback from LTR(E) SP within their chain, regarding the pilot.

Focus groups aimed to understand:听听

1. the impact of the Accompanied LTR(E) Overseas Pilot on operational effectiveness
2. the impact of the Accompanied LTR(E) Overseas Pilot on unit cohesion
3. the impact of the Accompanied LTR(E) Overseas Pilot on community cohesion
4. the perceived impact of the pilot on pre-deployment marriages and/or post-deployment divorces
5. the morale of SP, both on the pilot and not on the pilot
6. the ease and difficulty of SP accessing necessary services and provisions

Focus groups contributed to the evaluation by addressing the following process, impact and VfM evaluation research questions:

Process:

• To what extent has the pilot been delivered as intended?鈥�聽

• To what extent is there appropriate accommodation to implement the pilot?鈥�聽

• To what extent are there appropriate financial, human, and administrative resources/systems to implement the pilot?

• What aspects of the pilot implementation have worked well?

• What aspects of the pilot implementation could be improved?听听

Impact:

• To what extent has the pilot contributed to the intended outcomes and impacts which lead to an improved overseas accommodation offer for SP in LTR(E)s?

• To what extent has the pilot contributed to any unintended outcomes and impacts?

VfM:

• What is the satisfaction with the quality of accommodation provided to SP in LTR(E)s on the overseas pilot?聽

• Have there been increases in complaints/casework regarding accommodation since the launch of the overseas pilot compared to before the pilot?听听

• Is housing distributed fairly between those in LTRE and those who are married, or do married SP remain prioritised?听听

• Does the pilot remove any disparities in benefits between those in LTRE and those who are married?听听

A full list of the evaluation objectives and research questions can be found in the Evaluation Summary.

This report only focuses on the findings from the Chain of Command focus groups. It contains more detail than the process, impact and value for money evaluation reports, although there is some repetition.

2. Methodology

Qualitative data was collected during focus groups with the Chain of Command at bases in Cyprus. Qualitative research was preferred over quantitative to capture detail, nuances, barriers, enablers and contextual/personal factors driving 鈥榦perational effectiveness鈥� 鈥榗ohesion鈥� and 鈥榤orale鈥�.

Focus groups were selected as participants were of similar rank (reducing impact of seniority influencing conversations), and joint conversation would encourage the Chain of Command to share experiences of managing LTR(E) SP and views of the pilot. In-person research also avoided barriers/difficulties of conducting virtual conversation across multiple geographies and time-zones and allowed participants with limited access to laptops and Defence IT to take part.

2.1 Sample and recruitment

The evaluation sought to recruit a total of 24 participants across bases in Cyprus. Focus groups were open to all ranks and services. Unit Human Resources (Unit HR) in Cyprus provided a list of all eligible participants (55 total). Participants were considered eligible if they managed/oversaw LTR(E) SP within their Chain of Command. Individuals were invited to take part in focus groups via emails from the Evaluation Team and were also recruited/approached directly by Unit HR in Cyprus.

During recruitment, all participants were sent a participant information sheet and consent form which outlined the procedure for focus groups, information regarding audio recordings and transcriptions of focus groups and how data would be stored and used. Prior to the focus groups, participants submitted signed consent forms and provided verbal consent. Participants were also explicitly asked to adhere to during focus groups. 聽

A total of 22 participants, across bases in Cyprus, took part in focus groups (see Table 1). One participant was unable to attend for Akrotiri and provided written feedback instead. While some bases received fewer participants, focus groups were comprised of a variety of ranks.

Table 1: Number of focus group participants at each base in Cyprus

Base in Cyprus	Number of focus group participants
Akrotiri	7 (+1 written feedback)
Dhekelia	3
Ayios Nikolaos	4
Episkopi	8
Total Cyprus	(+1 written feedback)

2.2 Data Collection

The focus groups lasted between 30 and 60 minutes. Data collection took place in person, in March 2025. Participants responded to questions from a Government Social Researcher.

The focus groups were audio recorded and transcribed through Microsoft Teams. The transcripts were reviewed for quality purposes against the recordings. At this point, any identifiable information was removed, and transcripts were anonymised.

The focus groups were semi-structured and questions (Annex A) were designed by badged Government Social Researchers in the Accommodation Analysis Team to ensure relevant questions and topics would answer the evaluation research questions. The topic guide was reviewed and approved by stakeholders and cognitively tested with military and civilian personnel within MOD Head Office.

2.3 Data analysis

Focus group transcripts were uploaded and manually coded using Atlas.Ti software.

The analysis approach for this research was thematic analysis. Thematic analysis is aimed at systematically describing the meaning of qualitative data by assigning codes to the data, then identifying themes that emerge from the codes. An inductive approach was used for this research, meaning the data determined the themes which emerged.

During initial coding, two Government Social Researchers read all transcripts to extract key topics and ideas and assigned these a code. A codebook was developed listing all 39 codes and their respective definitions. The codes were grouped into 12 overarching themes to draw out wider insights and address research questions. Saturation of codes and themes was reached.

Codes from two randomly selected focus group transcripts were quality assured by badged Government Social Researchers using Cohen鈥檚 Kappa Coefficient (k) (Hallgren (2012), Hassan (2024), Cole (2023), McHugh聽(2012)). Results showed substantial to perfect agreement between the primary researcher and quality assurer in the application of codes (k=0.77 and 0.82, p<0.001). Themes were also quality assured by a Government Operational Researcher using Cohen鈥檚 Kappa Coefficient and showed near perfect agreement (k=0.97, p<0.001) between the primary researcher and quality assurer in the application of themes to codes.

2.4 Ethics and Quality Assurance

As defined under JSP 536 Defence research involving human participants (JSP 536), the pilot evaluation did not fall under scope of requiring approval from MOD ethic and scientific advisory boards. All research activities were undertaken by Government Social Researchers, strictly adhering to professional and ethical processes (including General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and Government Social Research practices):

• A Research Governance Checklist was completed for research activities and sent for approval by other Government Social Researchers within the MOD. The research plan, including methodology and data analysis were quality assured by a Principal Government Social Researcher.

• All focus group participants were provided with participant information sheets and consent forms, and informed consent (written and verbal) was obtained prior to focus group or audio recordings. Respondents could not proceed until they had provided their consent. Respondents could withdraw from the focus group at any point. It was made clear to respondents that their participation was voluntary.

• Respondents were made aware of how their data would be stored and used in line with GDPR. A Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) was completed and approved, and data (focus group audio recordings, signed participant consent forms, recruitment trackers and transcripts) was securely stored on MOD IT systems.

• To reduce burden on SP, we only asked questions which were essential to answer the research questions.

• Responses were anonymised during the analysis and reporting.

• The final report was quality assured by a Government Social Researcher within the Accommodation Analysis Team who had not been involved in the research. This ensured the report met MOD and Government Social Research profession standards.

2.5 Limitations of research

Limited Bases: Due to a low uptake in other pilot sites, responses to questions were largely limited to experiences in Cyprus. Therefore, the research findings may not be generalisable to other pilot sites and settings.

Timing of focus groups: The evaluation was commissioned for one year; however, the pilot is ongoing until March 2027. As a result, the current focus group findings only reflect the initial experiences from the first cohort of SP joining.

Causality: Focus groups cannot provide statistical or experimental causality i.e., state the pilot is the single cause of any noted changes. Focus groups were not intended to isolate the pilot as the single cause of change and no control or comparison groups were used.

Bias: Focus groups are subject to biases including recall biases (error in participant鈥檚 recollection of events/ideas), group think (participants conforming to the dominant opinion in the group), social desirability bias (participants stating what they believe is the correct opinion or idea) and moderator bias (researchers tone, questions or body language unintentionally influencing responses). Efforts were taken to reduce these biases by ensuring questions were not asking participants to reflect on events from more than one year prior. Two Government Social Researchers were present for each focus group. A structured topic guide was used, and emphasised no ideas or experiences were wrong/right, thereby limiting the potential of moderator and social desirability biases. In addition, focus groups consisted of individuals of similar rank, thereby limiting potential effects of personnel feeling intimidated or obliged to agree with more senior personnel.

Saturation, Generalisability and Participation: It may be the case not all key ideas or themes were captured from the focus groups, particularly as there were differing numbers of participants at each base. The analysis has indicated saturation of themes; therefore, the evaluation is confident that all key ideas have been captured but cannot state this as a certainty.

3. Findings

The findings of the focus groups have been organised by the primary research aims of the focus groups. Key themes and codes under each aim are further explored and quotations from focus groups presented. Quotes used in this report have been provided from the interview transcripts. They have only been edited for grammatical errors, clarity and brevity.

3.1 Aim 1: The impact of the Accompanied LTR(E) Overseas Pilot on operational effectiveness

Operational effectiveness was defined as the performance and ability for teams/units to be ready to deliver required tasks effectively and efficiently. Across all focus groups, the pilot was seen to enable overseas postings and have a positive effect on operational effectiveness. It had/was continuing to encourage overseas volunteering and would serve as an incentive for individuals to consider accepting overseas postings:

We struggle to fill some positions, and I think if the LTR wasn鈥檛 an option, we鈥檇 struggle a bit more. It鈥檚, you know, going back years, it鈥檚 not the ideal location for singles鈥�So I think the LTR has definitely made a significant improvement in recruiting people into Akrotiri or overseas. [Akrotiri]

I think overall the feedback we鈥檙e getting is positive for it [operational effectiveness], and it encourages more people to apply for positions out here. [Ayios Nikolaos]

If we didn鈥檛 have the pilot, I wouldn鈥檛 be here. I would have turned down the assignment to come out here鈥� the opportunity for me has been huge. Without this, I wouldn鈥檛 have come. [Ayios Nikolaos]

Focus groups in Episkopi and Ayios Nikolaos also highlighted the pilot as facilitating specialised roles to be filled. These roles were viewed as critical for operational effectiveness and required specific skillsets. The pilot was cited to 鈥渂roaden the pool鈥� of eligible SP and incentivise LTR(E) personnel to apply for and accept overseas roles:

This post wouldn鈥檛 have even been an option for me, I wouldn鈥檛 have even put it down without the LTR. They鈥檙e really post merit based so to get this post you鈥檝e got to be top of the game so potentially would have had someone who scored lower on the board without having this option. [Episkopi]

If it wasn鈥檛 for the LTR overseas I would not be here. My job is a critical role. At the time, I was the only person in the whole [service and skillset] who could fill the role鈥�I would have actually left the services entirely to maintain my relationship back in the UK and not be here鈥�.luckily, for me, this scheme exists and luckily for [service and team] this scheme exists, otherwise, they would have really been struggling. [Ayios Nikolaos]

One element affecting operational effectiveness was the length of time taken for SP to receive confirmation of supportability from Families Section (FamSec) and the ability to travel overseas. In some cases, this meant personnel were not able to deploy on time and reduced operational effectiveness. Three focus groups highlighted delays in the FamSec process as specific to LTR(E) personnel which is further discussed under research aim 6.

Everyone鈥檚 unique timeline with like getting the medical suitability, housing offered and so forth. And because it鈥檚 not been set in stone like following the timelines, I鈥檝e had soldiers who have not been able to deploy. For example, we鈥檝e just done X in [country X] and I鈥檝e not been able to deploy a soldier because it took ages everything coming through鈥�we鈥檝e had to leave him behind to get his family out here and get settled鈥�it has affected us a bit with operational effectiveness. [Episkopi]

3.2 Aims 2 and 3: The impact of the Accompanied LTR(E) Overseas Pilot on unit cohesion聽and community cohesion

Overall, evidence from focus groups indicates there is community cohesion and parity of treatment between LTR(E) SP and partners and married/civil partnered SP and spouses/partners. In addition, the pilot was seen to improve unit cohesion particularly by facilitating operational effectiveness and allowing LTR(E) personnel to take-up overseas posts, as mentioned above.

Positive impacts noted by focus groups included community cohesion in Cyprus. Participants felt LTR(E) couples had been integrated into the Armed Forces community in Cyprus and there was no distinction or discrimination towards LTR(E) couples in comparison to married/civil partnered personnel. Some participants highlighted this was likely because people would assume couples living in SFA were married and would not think to question someone鈥檚 relationship status:

I live in the SFA and there鈥檚 no clear delineation between people that are LTR, they鈥檝e just been integrated. It鈥檚 not generally a question either if you see people in SFA that they ask if you鈥檙e in an LTR. They just assume if you鈥檙e in SFA that you鈥檙e married. [Dhekelia]

I haven鈥檛 noticed聽any divide between people being sort of married and LTRs or anything like that. So LTRs are fully included within the unit, invited to everything. There is no issue. [Ayios Nikolaos]

It鈥檚 the exact same, LTRE or if you鈥檙e married, just the same thing out here, there鈥檚 no crosses on your door. Exact same thing. [Ayios Nikolaos]

Some focus group participants felt the distinguishing factor would be whether personnel had children rather than their relationship status:

LTR aren鈥檛 really seen as a separate demographic like if you go up to the SFA, you鈥檒l tend to have it as partnered without kids, partnered with kids that seems to be more the demographic. [Episkopi]

They鈥檝e been integrated. So as soon as they come over, they鈥檙e not sort of classed as LTR, once they move in with their partners everyone will assume they鈥檙e a new married couple and they start getting in amongst family life. [Dhekelia]

Participants in one focus groups did highlight a distinction in community cohesion between LTR(E) couples who moved within a unit versus LTR(E) couples who moved individually. Participants felt individual movers may experience more difficulties integrating into the military community than those moving as part of a unit. However, this was not necessarily specific to LTR(E) personnel and could also apply to married spouses:

I think where you鈥檝e got people come out as individual augmentee, so on their own, and if they don鈥檛 have that battalion network, then they don鈥檛 have anything to lean on. They鈥檝e got to try and always build those relationships with others in the surrounding area and within the community to just to survive. Whereas at least the battalion have got lots of others to help, like, go to a community welfare support. [Episkopi]

All focus groups also identified parity of treatment, allowances and entitlements between LTR(E) couples and married/civil partnered couples. In general, LTR(E) couples were not seen to face specific challenges when accessing medical, dental, schooling and other services in Cyprus. And as stated above were not viewed as a 鈥渟eparate demographic鈥�, and therefore, treated equally. While some participants highlighted difficulties for LTR(E) couples accessing external agencies and dealing with FamSec, focus groups did not cite any instances of LTR(E) couples on the pilot being denied entitled SFA or allowances. FamSec and external agencies are discussed in further detail under aim 4.

There鈥檚 no difference between a married person and an LTR person having that status card, and that gets you access to your medical, dental, schooling 鈥撀燩articipant 3:聽Housing, allowances, it鈥檚 all the exact same. [Ayios Nikolaos]聽

Given personnel largely live, work, and shop on-base in Cyprus, focus groups were not able to comment on cohesion for LTR(E) personnel within the wider Cypriot culture and community.

Concern was raised by a small number of participants regarding future community cohesion and entitlements to LTR(E) personnel. One participant felt community cohesion could be impact in the future if void margins reduced and married personnel were provided with alternative housing in favour of LTR(E) couples receiving on-base SFA:

It goes back to your question about people getting treated differently. I think in two years鈥� time you might find that they do. Because you have married people here trying to look for houses and then someone who鈥檚 been in relationship for a year and isn鈥檛 married might get a house rather than them. I think you might then get a little bit of animosity between the wives and stuff like that, especially if they go 鈥榳ell, I鈥檓 married, and then I couldn鈥檛 get this house鈥�. [Akrotiri]

However, as reassured by stakeholders and pilot policymakers, this is unlikely to occur. Should SFA become unavailable, overseas accommodation policy would be applied equitably and fairly across married/civil partnered and LTR(E) personnel; couples would be housed either at a nearby base or in the private rental sector with no prioritisation for SFA given to married/civil partnered or LTR(E) couples.

One participant in Episkopi also felt the LTR(E) offer could devalue the entitlement and recognition of married/civil partnered couples and other participants felt further restrictions or considerations should be put on individuals obtaining LTR(E) status. This sparked some debate within the focus group as other participants argued SP could choose to marry at any point without requiring proof of relationship status or commitment over 365 days as LTR(E) SP are required to provide. More information can be found on the requirements to be in an LTR(E) on 扒哥吃瓜.聽 聽

It definitely needs to better means tested鈥�it definitely devalues the position that I鈥檓 in [married] if someone that鈥檚 18-19 and been with someone for a year at weekends, let鈥檚 be honest because they鈥檙e travelling back and forth, are getting entitled to the same package as what I am. [Episkopi]

I think that more measures could be put in place. I think that if you鈥檙e LTR and you have children, I think you鈥檙e a bit more committed than phase two people that are just possibly got together or just partners. [Episkopi]

Participant A:聽So, like the threshold of LTR - 12 months, is that a long-term relationship? Because I want to say is I鈥檇 extend essentially, you know, greater proof like essentially living together prior maybe.

Interviewer:聽So, changing the actual definition of LTRE, the entitlement?聽

Participant A:聽Maybe just extending it from 12 months for a bit longer.

Participant B:听听And for marriage? Are you going to say you have to be married for a certain amount of time before you can be classed as PStat Cat 1?聽

Participant A:听听No because it鈥檚 completely different.聽

Participant B:聽No because you can go down, shotgun marriage and you鈥檙e automatically entitled.聽

Multiple participants at once:聽Yeah exactly.聽You can always do that.聽Yeah.聽You can always do it. [Episkopi]

In contrast, participants in Dhekelia and Akrotiri argued the LTR(E) definition and proofs needed to be reconsidered as it was felt to be an unfair demand and disparity to individuals who choose not to marry. One participant noted evidence of LTR(E) status was particularly difficult to obtain for deployed SP who may not live with their partner or be able to share bank accounts. In addition, two participants cited the proof required to obtain LTR(E) status had been a barrier to SP joining the pilot.

You need evidence to show that you鈥檝e been together for 365 days as a minimum鈥�A lot of people have been boyfriend and girlfriend in the UK or, you know, partners longer than that, but may not actually live together or share bank accounts, so it鈥檚 hard for them to actually find that evidence鈥� a lot of people then have been forced to quickly get married instead of utilising the pilot scheme. But, I think if someone鈥檚 willing to bring someone from the UK, to move their life, surely they could be a bit of justification because not every Tom, Dick and Harry鈥檚 going to decide to uproot their life, to move to another country with someone just because they haven鈥檛 got a bank statement鈥�I think there鈥檚 a lot more would have joined the pilot because we鈥檝e had people in recently that have only had evidence to shows of nine months commitment. [Dhekelia]

I registered obviously before I came out came out here. But if you asked me for that evidence now, I won鈥檛 have anything because we鈥檙e here together. I might have the odd bank transfer, but that鈥檚 all I could give you. [Dhekelia]

Maybe the six months in bank statements are a bit long, but I guess you鈥檝e got to start somewhere about what a long-term relationship looks like. [Akrotiri]

3.3 Aim 4: The perceived impact of the pilot on pre-deployment marriages and/or post-deployment divorces

Focus groups generally argued the pilot had reduced pre-deployment marriages, however, divorce rates were unknown, and one focus group felt they did not have the knowledge or information to comment on marriage and divorce among SP.

Three focus groups and written feedback specifically noted the LTR(E) pilot had reduced shot-gun marriages and pressure for SP to marry/obtain a civil partnership. Shot-gun marriages are considered to be rapid marriages/civil partnerships undertaken by SP and partners immediately before overseas deployment to receive married/civil partnered allowances and be accompanied overseas. In turn, the pilot was viewed as a positive incentive to remain in the Armed Forces, modernise Defence and improve inclusivity and acceptance of different relationships.

I remember only being like Private [anonymised details] and like the amount of young soldiers that got married at 21, 19 just to have a pad鈥� you鈥檇 see it - a soldier getting married at 21 and by the time they were 26 going through their first divorce. And in the battalion, we鈥檙e not really dealing with any of that鈥�I think what is a positive because of this is you鈥檙e getting a lot of young soldiers doing the LTR coming out. [Episkopi]

We鈥檝e had another person in our department who did get married before coming out here. But if the pilot was available at the time they wouldn鈥檛 have got married. And that鈥檚 been across the board from a lot of the junior soldiers that have been in service couples. [Dhekelia]

I just don鈥檛 think people are in a rush to get married and I think they used to force that in the military kind of push people towards that just to be sort of entitled to a house. So, I think it鈥檚 a step forward. [Akrotiri]

This scheme wasn鈥檛 available to either Cyprus or Brunei when the battalion was split across both locations in 2022. As a result, I know of at least 7 Service personnel that rushed weddings through in order to take their partner with them on their posting. This in itself added a great deal of pressure to those SP and their partners. [Written feedback]

One participant cited an example of the pilot allowing SP to not feel rushed into marriage:

We鈥檝e also had another individual who maybe brought forward their marriage but came out here initially on that LTR. So that allowed them that they can come out here, set up as a family, and then, you know, sort of get then get married鈥�.again that helped because it was a sort of like a stop gap - they鈥檇 been in a relationship long enough to qualify, hadn鈥檛 really thought about getting married, come out here on that long term relationship, and then subsequently got married and stayed here. [Ayios Nikolaos]

During the period of the pilot evaluation, preserved rights (i.e., the ability for LTR(E) SP to continue living in SFA on return to the UK) had not been communicated or formalised in policy. As a result, focus group participants were unclear on entitlements to preserved rights. They highlighted frustration and concern among LTR(E) SP on the pilot and felt marriage rates could increase as SP returned to the UK to remain eligible for SFA.

What would come a negative very soon is like we鈥檙e doing a unit move next year鈥� them LTR people will not be entitled to SFA. So it鈥檚 like a future problem 12 months from now is what鈥檚 going to happen with them people? Participant 2:聽Probably get a rise of marriages going back. [Episkopi]

So, this person has gone now from living committed, accompanied with his partner for a couple of years and then the Army鈥檚 gonna go 鈥榓ctually now after this date, you鈥檙e now back on surplus, you鈥檙e not entitled鈥欌��straight away it鈥檚 going to be 鈥榳ell do we have to get married?鈥�. [Dhekelia]

3.4 Aim 5: The morale of SP, both on the pilot and not on the pilot

The morale of SP on the pilot was viewed as positive, with focus group participants citing that the pilot served as an incentive to remain in the Armed Forces and created positive perceptions of the Armed Forces as a modern employer. Participants stated the morale of their partners was impacted by isolation and a lack of employment opportunities. As stated above, there was some frustration noted among LTR(E) personnel who were not able to join the pilot due to insufficient evidence of LTR(E) status. However, in general there is limited evidence from focus group discussions to assess morale of LTR(E) SP not on the pilot.

Overall, focus groups agreed that the pilot positively impacted individual LTR(E) SP and the wider Defence organisation. Participants noted that morale improved as SP were not deployed alone and could have 鈥渢heir comfort with them, as in their partner鈥�. In addition, the pilot was cited to reduce pressure to marry/form a civil partnership and facilitate enjoyment of overseas postings. One participant in Episkopi noted the effect of the pilot had positively impacted the relationship of a member in their team which in turn, positively affected his work and attitude:

He feels more valued, he obviously can claim the allowances now, there鈥檚 less strain on his relationship, he鈥檚 doing a much better job, less stressed overall. [Episkopi]

It鈥檚 been good morale for me because I love him, but I don鈥檛 want to marry my partner, so it鈥檚 good morale for me that we can actually still be here in a relationship rather than him be back in the UK. I think overall as a battalion perspective, I think it is an option that can increase morale because they can have partners here. [Dhekelia]

It鈥檚 been good for morale. The fact that they鈥檝e got their partners out here going out every day. I鈥檝e got some soldiers that have children taking their kids to school, picking them up definitely, I think good for morale boost. [Episkopi]

While topic guide questions did not specifically focus on the morale of LTR(E) partners, some focus group participants felt partners were struggling with overseas deployment due to a lack of employment opportunities, challenges with transportation and isolation. These factors are not specific to LTR(E) partners and affect spouses and partners of married/civil partnered SP. Employment was found to be largely impacted by the (1960). Under the treaty, job opportunities must first be offered to Cypriot citizens, thereby limiting employment opportunities to partners. Lack of employment was viewed to further contribute to issues of isolation and loneliness experienced by partners. Participants also cited individual movers (as opposed to those moving within a unit) may also experience more loneliness and difficulties integrating within the community on base. In addition, whilst in Cyprus, SP are often sent on operations, leaving partners behind and again, potentially increasing feelings of isolation:

Couples that haven鈥檛 been together for a huge amount of time that have come out here with no real job, no purpose or anything like that, it鈥檚 quite isolating for partners. [Episkopi]

I think it鈥檚 been a lack of understanding of when you come out here, like you said already, you are away a lot in Cyprus. There are soldiers with nights out of bed that are through the roof. So, there鈥檚 been issues鈥�Not having the support network because they鈥檙e new out here with military families or when their child鈥檚 ill or need going to hospital or medical appointments. [Episkopi]

It is hard for spousal employment out here as well. So, they could move, uproot their life and come here, and then this and then they could spend a significant amount of time by themselves and then subsequently can鈥檛 then get employment, so they have left a job in the UK. [Dhekelia]

We run a thrift shop so people can come in then and help them there鈥�We鈥檝e got two local聽two community bars that they can work in. But it鈥檚 the big things like the shop, the coffee shop, they can鈥檛 work in there. Which would be ideal, certainly for like teenage kids or older kids and spouses. [Ayios Nikolaos]

Participants also highlighted the potential impact to morale should they be unable to live in SFA on return to the UK due to a lack of preserved rights:

As soon as you step foot off of that plane in the UK, your PStat is back to Stat 5鈥�Then in 2026 it might be like 鈥榓ctually we don鈥檛 know if we鈥檙e entitled to a house anymore鈥欌��and I think that鈥檚 where you open up to low morale, sign off rates. People are gonna start because they鈥檝e been committed to this person, they don鈥檛 want to be apart from them, it just opens a can of worms. [Dhekelia]

Finally, FamSec was seen as impacting morale and causing frustrations as LTR(E) SP were repeatedly needing to provide proof of their LTR(E) status and participation in the pilot, including sending personal information to multiple sources. These issues with FamSec are discussed further under aim 6 below.

3.5 Aim 6: The ease and difficulty of SP accessing necessary services and provisions.聽

As shown above, focus group evidence indicates parity of treatment between LTR(E) couples and married/civil partnered couples. In general, LTRE(E) personnel on the pilot were successfully able to access entitled housing, welfare and services. The ability for LTR(E) couples to live together in SFA was cited as a positive, however some participants expressed concern over future housing availability in Cyprus and housing entitlement on return to the UK. In addition, participants felt allowances received were insufficient, accounting for cost of living, however, this was not specific to the LTR(E) pilot or discriminatory towards LTR(E) couples. Finally, some delays from FamSec caused difficulty for LTR(E) SP to obtain necessary supportability.

Within all focus groups, there was agreement that LTR(E) couples did not face specific issues accessing services in Cyprus and received 鈥渢he same remit as everyone else鈥� with regards to medical, childcare, dental and welfare services:

The forms are signed saying that they鈥檙e PStat 1 so they are classed as married, get full rate of LOA [Living Overseas Allowance], get same allowances so there鈥檚 no differences. [Dhekelia]

As far as I understand, they鈥檙e entitled to everything married so there鈥檚 been no issues. [Akrotiri]

One participant noted some disparity between married and LTR(E) couples accessing support from external agencies, particularly in the case of relationship breakdowns:

Talking to external agencies as well, it鈥檚 very hard to talk about. For example, Vets UK and other agencies, they offer care to family members, those that are with a service soldier or direct family鈥�if they were married and going through a divorce, yes, they鈥檙e going through a divorce, but they鈥檙e still classed as a family member - they鈥檝e been with someone and with a service holder, whereas a boyfriend, a girlfriend, it鈥檚 a different category and it鈥檚 hard to get the support for them because technically they鈥檙e not a family member through marital. [Episkopi]

Additionally, two focus groups highlighted that while effort had been taken to advertise the pilot, communication of the pilot could have been better cascaded to ensure all eligible SP were aware of the pilot and entitlements:

[SP] don鈥檛 know they鈥檙e allowed to go to into a LTRE. I don鈥檛 think it鈥檚 been advertised all that well. We do as much we can advertise, push it out in every application that we鈥檝e got. Because we鈥檝e got three in the pipeline that are coming out here as LTREs they鈥檝e all been very upbeat and surprised that they can do this, but they haven鈥檛 known about it. [Ayios Nikolaos]

Communication as we said wasn鈥檛 great in the first point, advertising it and then you might be taking away an opportunity that people didn鈥檛 get to see the first-time round. [Akrotiri]

Focus groups stated LTR(E) personnel received entitled housing, and this was viewed as a positive outcome of the pilot. Specifically, in Ayios Nikolaos, participants felt there was sufficient availability of housing for the pilot:

We鈥檝e got enough houses, there鈥檚 always been some question about how suitable it is, but that鈥檚 to do with compliance鈥�I know when you were down at Akrotiri, they were tight on houses鈥�But here we鈥檝e got enough houses to support them. [Ayios Nikolaos]

Everyone in an LTR is getting the houses so it鈥檚 only positive, I鈥檓 yet to see a negative. Just be honest, you鈥檙e not living in the block, I鈥檝e only ever seen and heard positives in my experience. [Akrotiri]

I think it will just be positive for them [LTR(E) couples] because you鈥檒l essentially - their accommodation it鈥檚 alright but not fantastic - if you鈥檙e just living between two rooms in the block and then being offered a house, regardless of whether that leads to marriage or it leads to separation, I think it鈥檚 positive. [Akrotiri]

However, in other bases, particularly Akrotiri, some concern was raised about the availability of SFA in the future:

Housing is limited and if it鈥檚 filled out with LTRE with people that are in relationships with no children and someone gets posted to Cyprus, it鈥檚 quite difficult to find housing because we鈥檝e already taken up.聽Because they鈥檝e fit the same PStat Category 鈥� they鈥檙e classed as an entitled personal. [Episkopi]

In addition, as covered under aim 4, preserved rights to SFA on return to the UK for LTR(E) couples was cited as a potential future issue and two participants felt the pilot had created a disparity between overseas and UK housing entitlements for LTR(E) personnel:

So, I鈥檓 entitled to a quarter and the preserved rights. It鈥檚 after 2026 [initial pilot end date] that鈥檚 where it might become difficult because obviously, I鈥檒l fall under the surplus category, and we all know how the UK is pretty thin on the ground. [Dhekelia]

LTR pilots just because they鈥檙e overseas are having this extra allowance and entitlement to keeping SFA, but what about LTRs in the UK who have been waiting years.聽Participant 3:聽Yeah, where鈥檚 the parity? [Dhekelia]

One disparity identified in Dhekelia between LTR(E) couples, and married/civil partnered couples was around next of kin data. It was stated next of kin for married spouses or civil partners would automatically be the SP. However, on the Defence HR system, this was not automatically updated for LTR(E) couples, and it was noted as an additional administration effort to obtain next of kin data for LTR(E) partners:

That鈥檚 almost a discrepancy because if you鈥檙e married you wouldn鈥檛 require a next of kin for your partner but LTRE it鈥檚 almost as if they don鈥檛 recognise your partner as your next of kin鈥� So, if something was to happen when they first arrive, it鈥檒l be a bit of an issue, a backlog of trying to track down people鈥檚 next of kin. [Dhekelia]聽

Finally, all focus groups discussed difficulties for LTR(E) SP to obtain necessary supportability due to delays and repeated requests from FamSec. The evaluation identified this as a specific barrier to LTR(E) SP. FamSec聽are part of UK Strategic Command and support SP going overseas by conducting supportability assessments to confirm medical, educational and relocation entitlements. Only when聽FamSec聽has confirmed supportability can聽single Services i.e., Army,聽and SP book flights, ship personal belongings etc. Evidence from the focus groups indicate FamSec had not been considered when implementing the pilot and did not have access or evidence of SP鈥檚 LTR(E) status and/or participation in the pilot. This in turn, led to FamSec repeatedly requesting evidence of LTR(E) status and pilot participation from SP and delays in SP receiving necessary approvals to access entitlements such as concessionary flights for partners and removals allowances:

I found it quite difficult to get the information and I found that I had to give all the information to FamSec, then give all the information to the unit, then give all the information to housing鈥� I was collating all my evidence; personal information, banking information, stuff like that鈥�and in giving it out all over the place.鈥� [Ayios Nikolaos]聽

So, Service people were going direct to welfare, welfare was then putting them into contact with FamSec, FamSec鈥痺ould not have anything to show that the relationship was being registered on JPA, then the service person would come to us sort of frustrated that people were not helping them.鈥� [Focus Group Dhekelia]

Focus groups also discussed additional areas which could be streamlined in the future to support SP; however, these largely fell out of scope of the pilot. For example, simplifying the process of applying for overseas deployment and spousal/partner visa applications.

4. Discussion

Evidence from the overseas chain of command focus groups indicate the pilot has positively affected SP morale, operational effectiveness and reduced pressures to marry pre-deployment. In addition, there was noted community and unity cohesion and parity of treatment with LTR(E) couples receiving entitled allowances and housing. While some concern was raised regarding partner employment and isolation, and insufficient overseas allowances, these issues fall beyond the scope of the pilot and into wider policy. Areas for improvement identified include communication of the pilot, inclusion of FamSec into the pilot process and preserved rights.

5. References

Cole, R. (2023) .聽Sociological Methods & Research,聽53(4), 1944 -1975

Hallgren KA. (2012) . Tutor Quant Methods Psychol. 8(1):23-34

Hassan M. (2024) 听听

McHugh ML. (2012) . Biochem Med (Zagreb). 22(3):276-82

Treaty Concerning the Establishment of the Republic of Cyprus (Treaty of Nicosia):

Annexes

A.1. Annex A: Topic guide used for all Chain of Command focus groups.

Introduction

Hi all, my name is X and I am a social researcher within the Accommodation Analysis Team. Thank you all for agreeing to participant in the Chain of Command Focus Groups for the Overseas LTR(E) pilot.

As a summary - the pilot is currently running in Cyprus and other selected overseas locations and allows Service personnel in established long-term relationships (LTR(E))s to be accompanied overseas by their partner and if applicable, children. Under the pilot scheme, SP also receive a bespoke allowance and accommodation package to mirror that of married/ civil partnered SP. The pilot has been running since January 2024 and our team is currently conducting an evaluation of the pilot. Today, we would like to learn about your perspectives of the pilot which will form part of the evaluation evidence base and make sure the pilot is operating properly, achieving intended outcomes, and allows us to identify future improvements or changes to the pilot.

Thank you for all signing the consent form prior to the focus group. I would like to reassure you all, participation is voluntary meaning you can leave the focus group at any point, and you do not need to contribute answers if you do not wish. Anything you tell us will be anonymised meaning you will not be identified in the research findings. I will be audio recording the focus group discussion so it can be transcribed and analysed. Once the transcripts are anonymised these recordings will be deleted. We ask that you all to please give everyone a chance to reflect and answer group questions and do not share with others what may be discussed here today, particularly if it is of a sensitive nature. Finally, different perspectives to questions are welcome but please ensure any challenges and conversations remain respectful.

Is everyone comfortable with me beginning the focus group and audio recording?

Are there any questions before we begin?

Begin audio recording

Thank you all for joining the focus group today. We will be asking for your views on various topics and are interested specifically in the impact of the LTR(E) Overseas pilot and policy on these topics.

Icebreaker

To begin, let鈥檚 go around the group and can you please all briefly describe your current role and if applicable, your experience with the pilot scheme.

Operational Effectiveness

We are now going to talk about the pilot scheme and the potential impact it has had on operational effectiveness. By operational effectiveness we mean the performance and ability for your teams/units to be ready to deliver required tasks effectively and efficiently.

• In your experience, how has specifically the pilot scheme impacted operational effectiveness within your units/teams? For example, are there noticeable changes or challenges in unit/team performance or readiness, and what are these challenges/changes?

• Please provide specific examples of how the pilot has impacted operational effectiveness.

• If yes, do you attribute these changes/impact to the pilot or are there also other contributing factors?

• Are you aware of any SP who volunteered to be assigned/posted overseas because of the pilot?

• If yes, was the pilot the reason they volunteered or were there other factors e.g., career promotion?

Morale and Postings

I would now like to focus on your views of the pilot鈥檚 impact on SP morale.

• Have you noticed any changes in the morale of SP in LTR(E) since the introduction of the pilot?

• If yes, what changes?

• If yes, what factors do you think are contributing to this change?

• Can you explain if these changes are specific to SP in LTR(E) or experienced by SP in general?

• What changes, if any, have you noticed in morale for SP who were accompanied by their partners from the beginning of their assignment and SP who were only able to bring their partners mid-assignment.

Unit and Community Cohesion

I would now like to focus on your views of the pilot鈥檚 impact on unit and community cohesion. This means the teamwork and unity within your immediate team and/or within the wider Defence community such as the base and Service.

• In your experience, has the presence of LTR(E) SP and their partners who are part of the pilot influenced unit and/or community cohesion?

• Are personnel in LTR(E) integrated into community life and activities?

• How has the presence of LTR(E) partners on base influenced unit cohesion?

• Do you observe any differences in unit/community cohesion from before the pilot started and now it is running? What are these differences, can you provide examples?

• What barriers, if any, do you think there are for LTR(E) personnel integrating with the units and/or community in Cyprus?

• Have there been any reported issues related to the integration of LTR(E) families, SP and/or partners in the wider Defence community?

Marriage and Divorce

I would now like to move on to discussing potential changes in marriage and divorce rates because of the LTR(E) pilot.

• What changes, if any, have you seen in pre-deployment marriages and/or post-deployment divorce rates since the introduction of the pilot?

• Are these changes amongst specific ranks or services?

• If yes, where have you received this evidence from, e.g., word of mouth?

• Do you think the pilot has directly contributed to these changes? If yes, please explain.

Accessing Services

The final topic we will be discussing today is the access of services. Specifically, how the pilot may be impacting access to services such as doctors and dentists, housing and allowances for LTR(E) personnel and SP more broadly.

• How has the pilot affected access and time taken to receive entitled accommodation and/or allowances for SP? Please provide examples.

• Do SP in LTR(E) or on the pilot face specific challenges or needs when accessing allowances and accommodation compared to single SP or SP who are married/in civil partnerships?

• How has the pilot affected access and quality to essential services such as medical and dental care, and welfare services in Cyprus? Please provide examples.

• Do SP in LTR(E) or on the pilot face specific challenges or needs when accessing these services compared to single SP or SP who are married/in civil partnerships?

• How has the pilot affected access and quality to childcare services including schools and nurseries? Please provide examples.

• Are changes or challenges with childcare services directly due to the pilot or are there other influencing factors?

• Are there any other services or social groups you believe have been affected by the pilot?

• If yes, what are these services/groups and how have they been affected by the pilot?

Closing

Thank you for your contributions to the discussion today. Is there any other feedback you would like to share about the Overseas LTR(E) pilot we may not have captured?

Thank you everyone for your time, we will now end the audio recording. If you have any queries or further comments you would like to add or remove, please send these to me via email within 2 weeks.

A.2. Annex B: Cohen鈥檚 Kappa Coefficient explanation and result聽

Cohen鈥檚 Kappa Coefficient (k) calculates the extent to which two agree or disagree about the presence/absence of codes, accounting for chance. This is part of an iterative coding process:

• Primary researcher(s) code a data set and generate code names and definitions for each code 鈥� collectively stored as a 鈥榗odebook鈥�.

• Primary researcher(s) randomly select a sample of the data set to quality assure e.g., 50 comments or 4 transcripts

• The secondary researcher(s) code the selected dataset, without consulting the primary researcher(s), only using the codebook.

• The primary researcher(s) create a scoring table; codes applied to comments/section(s) of the dataset are marked as 鈥�1鈥櫬燼nd codes not applied, are marked as 鈥�0鈥�.

• The primary researcher(s) uploads the tables to a statistical programme (this evaluation used SPSS) and calculates Cohen鈥檚 Kappa statistic.

• Once the coefficient and p-value have been interpreted, coding-reconciliation occurs between primary and secondary researcher(s) to discuss potential differences in coding.

Agreed scales to interpret Cohen鈥檚 Coefficient (k):

0 = no agreement聽

0.01 to 0.2 = slight agreement聽

0.21 to 0.4 = fair agreement聽

0.41 to 0.6 = moderate agreement (i.e., 59-40% disagreement of coding)聽

0.61 to 0.8 = substantial agreement

0.81 to 1 = perfect agreement.

Chain of Command Focus Group Results

Table B1 shows results of inter-rater reliability testing for focus groups. A total of 2 focus groups (50% of transcripts) were coded by a secondary researcher. Results suggest substantial to perfect agreement (k=0.77 and 0.82, p<0.001) between researchers in the application of codes for Chain of Command focus groups.

Table B1: Cohen鈥檚 Kappa Coefficient Results, and associated p-values for Chain of Command Focus Group Codes

Focus Group Transcript	Kappa Coefficient (k)	Approximate Significance (p-value)	Interpretation
1	0.77	<.001	Substantial Agreement
4	0.82	<.001	Perfect Agreement