Assessing Partnerships Between the Military and Civilian Agencies to Meet Transitioning Service Members’ Needs

Abstract

This study examines partnerships between the military and local communities by exploring communication channels of the U.S. military and civilian agencies that provide services to transitioning military members. This article reports on a study conducted in 2013 in the Hampton Roads, Virginia area, designed to determine the degree to which the military enters into partnerships with civilian service providers. We find that navy agencies in Hampton Roads do work with community partners, but the military is more directive than one might imagine in a true partnership, leading to “uneasy” partnerships. Additionally, there are important structural and organizational barriers that prevent true partnerships from developing between navy agencies and the community providers.

Keywords

veterans military and society military–civilian partnership civil military relations civil wars

Introduction

The issue of how best to prepare service members to transition from active duty to civilian life is one that impacts communities across the United States and abroad. As tens of thousands of soldiers, sailors, and airmen leave the military and join the civilian workforce, civilian agencies are engaged in helping these individuals reintegrate into their communities. This responsibility places significant pressure on local communities to meet the ongoing needs of service men and women and their families.

Local government agencies, private businesses, and nonprofit organizations play an integral role in the support system of men and women transitioning into civilian life (Higate, 2001), yet little is known of the partnerships between the military and civilian agencies. Research on transitioning military members typically addresses the psychological, substance abuse, employment, and family issues these individuals encounter after leaving service (see Clemens & Milsom, 2008; Danish & Antonides, 2013; Tanielian & Jaycox, 2008; Stretch & Figley, 1984). Few studies research the capacity of local communities to meet transitioning service members’ needs, and even fewer studies examine the nature of partnerships between the military and local service providers. With the significant number of individuals transitioning out of the military on an annual basis, there is an imperative need to understand the partnerships between the military and civilian agencies and the existing gaps in the community to meet service members’ needs.

This study examines partnerships between the U.S. navy and civilian agencies in the Hampton Roads, Virginia area, who are designed to serve transitioning military members, and the capacity of local communities to meet transitioning military members’ needs. Specifically, we seek to answer the following questions: What is the nature and extent of the partnership between the navy and civilian agencies in the Hampton Roads area to provide services to transitioning military members? More broadly, why do these partnerships exist and what are the challenges to military and civilian agency partnerships? Why do these partnerships seem to be “uneasy?” This research draws from a study¹ conducted in 2013 in the Hampton Roads, Virginia area, which is home to one of the largest concentrations of military personnel in the nation. While the study focuses on a specific region of the United States, we believe the findings will be useful to help identify partnerships in other civil–military contexts.

The article is organized as follows: We begin by offering a brief review of the limited number of studies addressing the issue of partnerships between military organizations and local community organizations. We then develop a working definition of the term “partnership” based on a broader literature drawn from studies of public–private partnerships. Second, the context of the study and research methodology is explained, followed by a discussion of the survey and interview results. Next, we present an analysis of the strengths, weaknesses, and barriers of the navy and civilian agency partnerships providing services to transitioning military members in the areas of education, job training, housing, and financial literacy. The article concludes with a discussion of recommendations to improve partnerships and communication channels with local agencies serving military members transitioning to civilian life.

A Review of Existing Literature

As noted at the outset of this article, there is little in the way of scholarly research that addresses the nature of partnerships between military organizations and local community organizations that provide services directly to transitioning service members. Over the past decade, 30,000–40,000 U.S. military members have retired from service in a given year and thousands more separate for other reasons (U.S. Department of Defense, 2013). Thousands of active duty military members are also returning from service in the Middle East (Reed, 2013). As of 2014, it is estimated that there are about 22 million living veterans in the United States (U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, 2014).

There is a long tradition of scholarship addressing questions of military–civilian relations (Rahbek-Clemmensen et al., 2012). Smith (1951), Huntington (1957), and Janowitz (1960), among others, helped define the focus of this line of inquiry by addressing the mechanisms through which military power in a democratic society is controlled or constrained by civilian authority. More recent scholarship (see Burk, 2002; Feaver, 1996; Kohn, 1994; Schiff, 1995) has carried on in this tradition, examining the nature of the state in a democratic setting to better understand the role of the military in this environment. Others (Ari, 2007; Byman, 2001; Cottey, Edmunds, & Forster, 2002) have applied these same concepts and theories to a comparative or international context to explain the changing face of civil–military relations in a post-communist era. A separate stream of inquiry explores the attitudes and training of military members (Leal & Nichols, 2013; Ricks, 1997), and still another line of research examines veterans’ issues (Camacho & Atwood, 2007; Tessler, Rosenheck, & Gamache, 2003), issues of identity (Higate, 2001), and the needs and attitudes of families (Kudler & Porter, 2013).

However, all of these streams of research tend to focus attention on a macrolevel view of relationships between civilian society and the military, often addressing broad questions of democratic theory and the implications of different models for political and institutional control (see Shields, 2006). Conversely, there is very little work to examine the nature of relationships between military organizations and local community organizations. While the macrolevel studies do much to help us understand overall civil–military relations, they do not speak to the more common and routine need for military organizations to seek assistance from local nonprofit or government agencies to provide support for service members transitioning back to civilian life nor to the need to better understand the nature of the relationships that develop between these organizations.

Meeting Transitioning Service Members’ Needs

Questions have been raised about the capacity of both military and civilian agencies to meet the needs of retiring and separating military members (Camacho & Atwood, 2007; Rubin, 2012; Savitsky, Illingsworth, & DuLaney, 2009). While the military and government are required to provide certain services to former military members (e.g., the various services provided by the Veterans Administration [VA] or the transition assistance programs required by law), community agencies may not have such obligations. There is a dearth of empirical studies on the capacity of a given locale to serve military members. The literature that is available often focuses on the individual or microlevel factors couched in social work or psychology (Reed, 2013; Rubin, 2012; Savitsky et al., 2009). Much literature and research focuses on transition of military members from active duty combat to life back at home (vs. transition/separation from their military career). Bowen, Martin, Mancini, and Nelson (2000) have done extensive work in developing a model of community capacity that focuses on both formal and informal networks within a community to support military families (see also Mancini, Bowen, & Martin, 2005).

There is a fair amount of agreement that retiring and transitioning military members need support from both their command and their community, but little research actually quantifies how much help is available and what the gaps might be—particularly when discussing services other than those related to mental health or education. Moreover, there is almost no attention given to the nature of the relationships between military agencies and their civilian partners at the local level. Little is known of what constitutes a partnership between the military and the community organizations, how the partnerships work, and whether they are effective at meeting transitioning military members’ needs. This study addresses these issues by exploring the partnerships between the U.S. navy and local organizations in the Hampton Roads, Virginia community. To do so, we draw on a body of literature that addresses cross-sector partnerships, and the literature on public–private partnerships, as a way to discuss the issues associated with partnerships between the navy and its local community providers.

Defining Partnership

The term partnership has a long and rich history in the academic literature (Bloomfield, 2006). The term has been used in the business literature for many years and refers to the ways in which companies work with each other in order to gain competitive advantage in the marketplace (Mohr & Spekman, 1994). This literature tends to treat partnership in a rational and instrumental manner. Beginning in the 1980s, the term partnership began to be applied to contractual relationships in a privatization context (Savas, 1987). In this context, partnership was intended to refer to the coproduction of traditional public services and was thought to require a commitment beyond the legal contract (Kettl, 1993). By the mid-1990s, scholars in the nonprofit sector began applying the term to relationships between nonprofit and government agencies (Brinkerhoff, 2002; Gazley & Brudney, 2007; Peters, 1998). Brinkerhoff (2002) offers the following definition of partnership:

Partnership is a dynamic relationship among diverse actors, based on mutually agreed objectives, pursued through a shared understanding of the most rational division of labour based on the respective comparative advantages of each partner. Partnership encompasses mutual influence, with a careful balance between synergy and respective autonomy, which incorporates mutual respect, equal participation in decision making, mutual accountability and transparency. (p. 21)

Brinkerhoff’s (2002) definition portrays an active, involved interaction between partners, with overt efforts to communicate, discuss areas of mutual interest, and share decision-making authority. The definition assumes a reasonably high degree of interdependence between the partners, yet each partner organization retains a high degree of individual identity.

Partnerships at the organizational level have been the subject of countless scholarly works. Falling generally into the category of interorganizational relations, this literature seeks to define and categorize the conditions under which organizations interact. An offshoot of these efforts is the growing literature in collaboration. Although somewhat elusive in terms of an exact definition (see Mayer & Kenter, 2015; Morris, Gibson, Leavitt, & Jones, 2013; Williams, 2015), collaboration is generally defined to be an interorganizational interaction with specific characteristics (voluntary participation, shared resources, collective decision making, etc.).

The literature in privatization also speaks about the importance of partnership. The underlying constructs are often different and tend to focus more on defining success in a partnership than defining different partnership arrangements. For example, Heilman and Johnson (1992) and Kettl (1993) speak to the importance of goal coalignment for successful privatization. Drawn from a principal agent perspective, the conclusion is that privatization is more likely to be successful if the parties involved respect the goals of the other parties in the relationship and tailor their actions and efforts to the attainment of the common goals. Morris, Lombard, and Leavitt (2008) argue that goal coalignment is also important in successful economic development projects and that the success of an economic development partnership depends largely on the partners conceiving of the partnership in the same terms. Donahue (1989) credits the success of public–private partnerships to a shared purpose. In short, the underlying elements of partnership found in the privatization literature can aid our understanding of partnerships in other contexts.

More generally, partnership may be conceived of as a range of interorganizational interactions that take place along a continuum of action. At one extreme of the continuum, organizations exist in a multiorganizational space in which there is no interaction between organizations. This end point is only important in theoretical terms, as it helps define one potential boundary for observation. At the other end of the continuum, we may imagine a state of effective integration, where the actions of the participating organizations are so tightly intertwined that it becomes empirically impossible to distinguish one organization from the other. In between these two theoretical end points are an unlimited number of points that may be used to describe a level of interaction between organizations.

A major limitation in the literature is the apparent assumption that partners are always at the same point on the continuum at the same point in time. If the partnership can be described as “cooperative,” then all involved parties must define the same level of engagement. But different parties may define the relationship differently or desire to be at a different point on the continuum. If the participation in decision making or level of accountability is not equal, or goals are not fully aligned, can the interaction be reasonably termed a partnership? If so, how does one place the interaction on the continuum? Indeed, it is likely that a fine-grained effort to classify the kinds of partnerships possible would reveal that most organizations would place themselves on a different point on the continuum than would their partners. If the points are relatively close the effects are likely to be minimal, but if perceptions of the partnership differ to a greater degree, then the ability of partner organizations to work together effectively may be in jeopardy. We define partnerships in this vein as “uneasy partnerships”: Goals may differ, communication may be difficult, decision making may be asymmetric, accountability standards may be different, or institutional barriers may inhibit effective partnership. When such barriers exist, partnerships will be strained and perhaps be more difficult to work effectively. We note that interorganizational interactions can involve many participants, but our specific interest is the degree to which the U.S. military’s dyadic relationships with a variety of community partners are perceived as partnerships by both military agencies and its individual partners.

Context of the Study

This research was undertaken as part of a community capacity study for the U.S. Navy’s Fleet and Family Support Program (FFSP) in Hampton Roads. The researchers worked closely with personnel from the FFSP to determine the extent of interaction between the navy and local community organizations to meet transitioning service members’ needs. The mission of the FFSP (mid-Atlantic) is to:

provide programs and services that contribute directly to fleet readiness and career retention: reinforce rapid response capability and provide crisis intervention, to support mobilization and surge activity through deployment readiness, and provide crisis response, counseling and advocacy services (Commander, Navy Installations Command, 2015).

As service providers, the FFSP acts as the facilitator for the services military personnel and their families require. The U.S. Congress and the navy have determined that the services provided by FFSP are critical to mission support. In order to understand Fleet and community resources that are available, FFSPs are required to conduct regular (at least triennially) community capacity studies. The community capacity study provides a context to better understand the relationships and partnerships between community agencies that provide services to service members and the navy (via FFSP).

Method

This study employs a single case study,² mixed-methods approach including surveys and interviews. A web-based survey was administered to government, nonprofit, and for-profit service providers within a 60-mile radius of the Hampton Roads, Virginia area. Using the Internet, organizations located within the 60-mile radius were identified that provide services specific to the areas of job search/job readiness, housing, financial planning/financial literacy, and higher education/vocational training. The survey consisted of 17 questions designed to inquire about the range of services provided, the type and number of clients served (i.e., active military, military spouses/dependents, veterans, and other), fees charged for services, staff size and training, the extent to which the organization partnered with the navy in Hampton Roads, and questions about the nature of their partnerships with both the navy and other agencies. Questions related to the nature of the partnerships asked how the agency perceives its partnership with the navy; whether there is a formal agreement between the agency and navy; and whether the agency is an equal partner with the navy in decision making, planning, goal setting, and determining services for transitioning service members. One hundred and sixty-one agencies were sent e-mails with the web address to the online survey, and a total of 60 agencies (37%) completed the survey. These organizations represent a convenience sample of agencies providing the services noted earlier.

After completing the web-based survey, service providers were asked if they would participate in a follow-up interview. A total of 34 individuals indicated an interest in a follow-up interview and provided their contact information, and 30 (88%) completed 30- to 40-min telephone interviews. The interview questions were tailored to obtain a qualitative description of the geographic areas the agency serves, services provided by the agency, challenges to providing these services, existing gaps in services for transitioning service members, and perceptions of community agency relationships with military agencies. Questions related to perceptions of partnerships between the agencies and military asked the interviewee to explain whether their agency set goals with their navy partners, whether they shared resources within the partnership, how they would describe the partnership, what types of barriers and challenges existed within the partnership, and how these barriers and challenges could be overcome. Interviewees were also asked to describe their partnerships and communications with other local organizations providing similar services.

Nineteen staff from the Fleet and Family Support Center (FFSC) who assist service members with their transition to civilian life were also interviewed. Respondents included Command Career Counselors (CCCs);³ resource specialists from the Fleet and Family Support Program (FFSP);⁴ financial educators; and facilitators, educators, and coordinators of the military’s required transition assistance program. The interviews explored the services key informants provide to service members; services that key informants feel are lacking for separating/retiring members; agencies in the community that key informants work with or refer service members to; key informants’ perceptions of the capacity of community agencies to continue to provide services to separating service members; and key informants’ perceptions of partnerships with the military and other community agencies, barriers and challenges to these partnerships, and how the partnerships can be strengthened. Interviews were conducted over the telephone or in person and took an average of 30–40 min.

Interviews were transcribed for analysis, and following King’s (2004) method for template analysis for coding interviews, an initial template of codes was created from preexisting themes or issues identified in the research questions and existing literature. After the initial template was created, the codes were systematically applied to each interview, and additional coding themes were identified. Survey data were analyzed using descriptive statistics to compare percentages and mean scores. While the community capacity study was designed to identify gaps in services in four key areas, we report here only on the specific information relating to the nature of the partnerships between the navy and the organizations participating in the study.

Results

Respondents from community agencies were asked about limitations in serving service members. Twenty-eight percent reported that limitations do exist, including meeting the service needs of homeless veterans, the inability to provide details about tuition assistance programs, and a lack of mental health services and funding. Respondents also identified funding as a crucial limiting factor to continued service provision. Many of these agencies are nonprofit and thus depend on uncertain financial resources to continue service provision. One respondent expressed concern that the current study would result in a “flood of potential clients” that the agency would not be able to support due to funding issues.

Another frequently mentioned challenge to serving service members was a lack of awareness on the part of transitioning members as to what options they have postseparation, what their benefits are, and what service providers exist to help with these issues. Many agencies indicated that not only are service members unaware of services they can access and the benefits they can take advantage of postseparation but that service members could also benefit from being made more aware of services that FFSP offers as well as benefits that retirees can access. The frequency with which respondents mentioned the lack of awareness of services on the part of service members indicates that there is a need for better marketing of existing resources and closer coordination of service provision between military agencies and community agencies. Respondents also cited issues with translating military experience into corporate or “real-world” experience and connecting veterans with employers. Affordable housing and job availability were also mentioned as more structurally-based challenges.

Interviewees from the FFSC were asked about their perceptions of the community’s capacity to assist with service members’ transitions to civilian life. Overall, they indicated that services in most areas are well provided, and that there is sufficient capacity in the community to assist service members, with some exceptions. Notably, with respect to housing, there is “very limited” capacity. One respondent indicated that local housing authorities are beginning to refer clients to shelters, as there is no immediately available supportive housing. Another respondent, in the employment and education area, indicated that “from the capacity perspective, less than 50% of community agencies are actually able to help.” Another respondent who deals with employment issues stated that the capacity is “ZERO. If the community is providing services they are not advertising it.” Except for the issue of limited housing, these statements appear to contradict agency reports that they are able to accept additional clients. It is possible that these statements reflect dissatisfaction with the available community services. It may also be the case that these conflicting perspectives are due to a lack of effective communication between the military and these agencies regarding their capacity or a lack of awareness about the extent of services available in the community.

Partnerships With Other Agencies

Survey results indicate a substantial degree of cooperation between agencies. Sixty-seven percent of agencies represented in the survey are aware of other agencies in Hampton Roads that provide services similar to their own. Agencies also appear to work together to provide services to clients: 85% of agencies reported that their agency accepts referrals from other agencies and 62% of agencies reported having formal agreements in place with other agencies.

Respondents from community agencies were also asked about their partnerships with other agencies. The questions were developed from the elements of partnership found in the extant literature reviewed earlier in this article. As shown in Table 1, 39% of agencies surveyed reported that their agency partners with other agencies because they have to. Fifty-eight percent of agencies surveyed reported that their agency partners with other agencies in planning and decision making and 63% of agencies surveyed reported that their agency is an equal partner with agencies in establishing goals, determining services, and setting a future direction. The results of the questions regarding the characterization of partnership suggests that while about 39% of respondents feel compelled to partner with other agencies, the partners are generally construed to be of equal stature in the partnership. A solid majority of respondents (63%) agreed that goal-setting activities were equally shared among partners.

Table 1.

Dimensions and Extent of Partnerships With Other Agencies.

	Percentage
	Strongly Agree (n)	Agree (n)	Neither Agree Nor Disagree (n)	Disagree (n)	Strongly Disagree (n)	Does Not Apply (n)
My agency partners with other agencies because we have to	27.1 (16)	11.9 (7)	15.3 (9)	11.9 (7)	22.0 (13)	11.9 (7)
My agency operates at the direction of another agency	6.8 (4)	10.2 (6)	10.2 (6)	16.9 (10)	20.3 (12)	35.6 (21)
We are equal partners with other agencies we work with in planning and decision making	25.4 (15)	32.2 (19)	18.6 (11)	1.7 (1)	5.1 (3)	16.9 (10)
My agency is an equal partner with agencies we work with in establishing goals, determining services, and setting a future direction	30.5 (18)	32.2 (19)	16.9(10)	3.4 (2)	3.4 (2)	13.6 (8)

Respondents from community agencies were asked in the follow-up interviews about their communication and partnership with other organizations that provide similar services. Overall, the agencies reported good communication and an excellent working relationship with other agencies. The interview results were somewhat at odds with the survey results, however. While many community agencies seem to work closely with each other, the interview data suggest there does not seem to be a great amount of goal sharing taking place, as many of the organizations reported that they do not have shared goals with their agency partners. Resource sharing appears more common, and many of the agencies interviewed indicated they do share resources with their agency partners. However, the extent to which they share resources or what specific resources they share is unclear. We suspect these differences are due to self-selection bias, and the organizations that agreed to participate in follow-up interviews may be more likely to view their partnerships in a positive light.

Perceptions of Partnership Between Community Agencies and the Navy

Although it seems that partnerships are occurring to a substantial degree between community agencies, this does not appear to be the case for community agency and navy agency relationships. A strong majority of respondents in the web agency survey indicated they serve active-duty personnel (92%), but only 45% of respondents reported that they partner with the navy to provide services for service members. When asked about their familiarity with FFSP in the follow-up interviews, respondents from community agencies were fairly evenly divided among those who are very familiar with FFSP, those who are somewhat familiar, and those who are unfamiliar with FFSP. These responses suggest that relationships between the navy and a sizable portion of community agencies are limited. While less than half of agency survey respondents reported partnering with the navy, key informants on the military side did indicate that partnerships are occurring. However, they also expressed the view that more could be done to improve these relationships.

This finding is indicative of the difference in perspective between the navy and its civilian partners, but it is also suggestive of a strong sense of commitment to the needs of service members in the region. The difference between the percentage of agencies serving service members and those that report they partner with the navy indicates an awareness of need and a desire to serve these needs, but local agencies do so largely as independent (and unconnected) entities. In short, the elements of successful partnership are less apparent between the navy and its community partners than is the case between community partners. As noted later in this article, the lack of effective partnership, coupled with a lack of financial resources to support the service member population, causes friction between the navy and the local agencies.

Limitations of Agency Referral Process

Some barriers to more effective partnerships are institutional or legal in nature. For example, through the course of the key informant interviews we were told that Judge Advocate General of the navy has issued a legal opinion that inhibits local navy personnel from maintaining and utilizing a formal referral list of local providers, arguing that such a process would constitute an endorsement of certain providers. This rule limits the ability of FFSP to refer service members to community agencies. Indeed, no clear referral process was identified when informants were asked to describe their efforts to seek services from outside agencies, making it unclear as to how organizations are chosen for referrals. In some cases, it is up to individual staff to compile lists of community resources as they see fit.

Interviewees from the FFSC also did not identify consistent criteria for determining whether a community agency is acceptable as a referral agency. The most common criteria were that the agency or organization not charge a fee, not target a specific group (i.e., officers instead of enlisted) and had received positive mentions from service members who had previously used these agencies. Networking and word of mouth within the FFSP offices were mentioned as ways to find new agencies in the community. There does not appear to be a process in place to “discover” new or existing relevant community services. This in particular may limit the navy’s awareness of the community’s capacity and its ability to partner with effective service agencies.

Lack of Communication About Available Services

Several interviewees from the FFSC indicated that there is a lack of knowledge both within the military and community agencies as to what services are offered by each respective organization. This is of particular note since community agencies do not have the same type and frequency of access to services members as FFSP. This presents a significant barrier to service members’ knowledge of what community services are available to them. For example, interviewees noted that many military members are not informed by the FFSCs and CCCs as to what services are offered in the community. This lack of knowledge also works in the other direction. Some key informants expressed a desire for agencies to be more aware of what FFSP does and its limitations and to have the referral process work in both directions. As one informant stated, “I don’t think that local agencies really realize what we do.” Effective partnerships may be hampered when participants lack awareness of what their partners do, and in turn this is likely to affect the quality of service being provided to transitioning navy members.

Several agencies also reported that they could benefit from being better informed about the benefits the navy offers their transitioning members. The follow-up agency interview data revealed that when transitioning service members come to their agency for services, the service members are not very familiar with their military benefits. Greater communication between the military and the agencies could improve agency understanding of the benefits available to former service members and therefore could also improve agency ability to assist individuals with their transition to civilian life. As one respondent stated, “The military speaks a different language than civilians. Sometimes they use different words to describe things than we do and this can be a very big barrier to understanding.”

Indeed, respondents from community agencies who reported fewer challenges to serving service members were those who also indicated having a close relationship with either FFSP or with the military in general. This is a key point, given that those who did not have these types of relationships were more likely to point out communication and awareness as barriers to service provision. For example, one respondent familiar with the military stated that the reason they have few challenges to providing services to service members is due to the fact that the agency has “the experience and knowledge to deal with their problems. Challenges come in the form of the challenges of the clients, which mainly have to do with adjusting to civilian life.” Agencies that work closely with the navy, then, seem to have more access and information available to them about the obstacles associated with the transition process that they can use to better assist service members.

Avenues for Improvement

All agencies, including those that already work closely with FFSP, indicated that they see ways to improve partnerships with FFSP. Several agency respondents indicated this could be achieved through better communication between FFSP and service providers, as well as through better coordinated efforts at including outside agencies in the transition process. Of those agencies who are very familiar with FFSP, several indicated they would like to partner more closely in order to provide better training and information to transitioning navy personnel, mainly through joint trainings. The referral process was also mentioned specifically as needing better two-way communication. Some agencies expressed the desire to have FFSP refer service members to them, while others stated that they want to be able to refer service members to FFSP.

Some respondents from the FFSC reported that the lack of knowledge and communication between the two sides could be improved by more formalized meetings among military and community agencies. Two respondents specifically suggested an annual or semi-annual “summit” where community agencies and FFSP staff could work face-to-face to communicate what agencies offer which services as well as creating personal relationships that enhance the partnership process. Interestingly, one respondent indicated that it is important for FFSP to communicate to outside agencies exactly what the limitations of service provision are within the military in order to prevent agencies from assuming that the navy can provide a particular service, thus referring the service member back to FFSP.

Summary

Strengthening partnerships with outside agencies is a critical element to ensuring transitioning service members are adequately prepared for life after military service. Importantly, interviews from staff at FFSC suggest that from the navy’s perspective, positive relationships already exist with outside agencies, although more regular communication would be beneficial. In contrast, less than half of the respondents from community agencies reported partnering with the navy in the agency survey. Such lack of consensus about the state of the relationship may stand as a barrier to more effective partnerships. As noted earlier in this article, uneasy partnerships occur when communication is difficult, goals differ, decision making is asymmetric, accountability standards are different, or institutional barriers inhibit effective partnership. While it seems that a handful of agencies do work closely with the navy, there are many more that do not, and the result is a series of uneasy partnerships. Given the large demand for services from transitioning service members, more frequent and more extensive partnerships between the navy and community agencies would likely improve service provision to military members as they transition to civilian life.

Discussion and Conclusion

At the outset of this article, we posed two related research questions: What is the nature and extent of the partnership between the navy and civilian agencies in the Hampton Roads area to provide services to transitioning military members? More broadly, why do these partnerships exist, and what are the challenges to military and civilian agency partnerships?

The answers to these questions are at once both straightforward and complex. At one level, there are partnerships and communication channels between the navy and the local community, and some community providers regularly provide quality services to transitioning navy personnel. Navy members have their choice of community providers for many services, and the community providers are happy to serve transitioning service members.

On closer inspection, though, the answers to our research questions are a bit more complex. While navy agencies do work with community partners, the relationship is perhaps more one-sided and directive than one might imagine in a true partnership—at best, these relationships might be described as uneasy partnerships. Moreover, there are some important structural and organizational barriers that prevent true partnerships from developing between navy agencies and the community providers.⁵ For example, the legal prohibition against a formal referral process, designed to avoid endorsement of certain providers, has resulted in an ad hoc, informal list of local providers that are shared when needed. Such lack of systematic record keeping is an organizational barrier to establishing closer contacts with community providers. Likewise, the lack of a funding source in FFSP to pay for services from local providers in support of the needs of transitioning service members will continue to be a point of contention between the navy and its partners. Local providers indicated to us they would “find a way” to meet an increased demand for services, but nearly all respondents expressed trepidation about future funding.

In terms of partnerships, the navy finds itself in a curious position. On one hand, the navy must rely on the community to provide services to personnel that navy agencies cannot provide. As more than one FFSC staff member told us, most of the uniformed service members and their families live in the community and are as much the community’s responsibility as they are the navy’s. On the other hand, the navy has little to offer these community partners in return for their services to navy members. The community partners often see the navy as a directive force that does not always give them the needed resources to offset the costs of providing services to its members. The goals of the two partners thus seem different, and the perceived differences are a source of friction between the navy and the community. As a practical issue the local FFSC does not have resources to offer to the community partners, but they do have a vested interest in ensuring that the needs of service members are met. This inherent friction limits the ability of the two entities to partner in a truly meaningful manner. This situation is exacerbated by an inability for the partners to engage in effective planning, goal setting, and decision making.

Second, there are strong indications of structural limitations in the navy’s command structure. The CCCs are uniformed enlisted personnel; for many of these members, the duty as a CCC is a collateral one (done in conjunction with their primary assignment). This is particularly true in small- and medium-sized commands (less than 300 people). As such, the CCC job often receives less attention than it otherwise might, and the CCCs have little incentive to develop and maintain accurate lists of community providers. Since the CCC is the first point of contact for navy personnel requesting services, many requests are likely to be imperfectly addressed.

A significant limitation of this study is its focus on a single branch of the U.S. military in a single geographical location. This constraint makes generalization effectively impossible, so the findings and conclusions of this research should be viewed within that circumstance. However, we should also point out that the navy’s transition program, along with the requirement for military commands to partner with local community agencies, is a Department of Defense-wide requirement that affects all military commands in the continental United States. All transitioning service members are required to participate. Moreover, the Hampton Roads setting is useful, in that it is not only home to the largest active navy base in the world, it is also home to installations representing all U.S. uniformed services (including the U.S. Coast Guard). There is no a priori reason to believe that the nature of local community organizations in the area is any different than anywhere else in the nation; indeed, the long history of a significant military presence in the community would suggest a more finely tuned sensitivity within the community to the needs of military service members. Thus, we believe the findings will be useful to help explore and identify partnerships in other civil–military contexts.

A second significant limitation of this work, and of other work in the same vein, is the inability of most studies to track separatees after they leave military service. In addition to the methodological challenges associated with tracking a young, mobile population, there are privacy and ethical issues that can significantly limit the ability of researchers to use previous military affiliation as a means to track civilians. However, this leads to an incomplete understanding of the impact of the military on community partners, as the needs for military personnel continue (and, perhaps, grow) postseparation.

Finally, the dearth of scholarly research on this issue is troubling. As the United States begins to downsize its military forces after a decade and a half of war, significantly greater numbers of military separatees will be seeking services to help them adjust back to civilian life. This trend will create upheaval not just for the military services, uniformed personnel, and their families but also for the civilian communities tasked with providing these services. There is both a significant need (and opportunity) for scholarly research to address questions regarding this trend and to provide guidance and knowledge about the link between the military and civilian communities. These efforts should not be focused on the broader questions of civil–military relations as found in the extant literature but rather on the realities facing both the service commands and the local community agencies on which they rely—in essence, at a “micro-level” of analysis. At what point is a working agreement between a military agency and a community agency considered a partnership? What methodologies are appropriate for measuring community capacity? How do we address the inevitable policy questions that arise from the clash of military and civilian cultures, the federalism issues arising from federal/local relationships, and the funding issues that will accompany an increased demand for community services? These are all questions for future research, and we encourage scholars of public administration to contribute to the answers.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

The findings and conclusions in this article are those of the authors and do not represent any official position of the U.S. Navy or the Department of Defense.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Funding for this project was provided by NAVSUP FLC Norfolk, solicitation #N00189-12-T-0318.

Notes

References

Ari

L. B

. (2007). Civil-military relations in Turkey. San Marcos, TX: Department of Political Science. Retrieved from http://ecommons.txstate.edu/arp/248.

Bloomfield

(2006). The challenges of long-term public-private partnerships: Reflections on local experience. Public Administration Review, 66, 400–411.

Bowen

G. L.

Martin

J. A.

Mancini

J. A.

Nelson

J. P.

(2000). Community capacity: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Community Practice, 8, 1–21.

Brinkerhoff

. (2002). Government-nonprofit partnership: A defining framework. Public Administration and Development, 22, 19–30.

Burk

(2002). Theories of democratic civil-military relations. Armed Forces & Society, 29, 7–29.

Byman

(2001). Uncertain partners: NGOs and the military. Survival: Global Politics and Strategy, 43, 97–114.

Camacho

P. R.

Atwood

P. L.

(2007). A review of the literature on veterans published in Armed Forces & Society, 1974-2006. Armed Forces & Society, 33, 351–381.

Clemens

E. V.

Milsom

A. S.

(2008). Enlisted service members’ transition into the civilian world of work: A cognitive information processing approach. The Career Development Quarterly, 56, 246–256.

Commander, Navy Installations Command. (2015). Navy life. Retrieved from http://www.cnic.navy.mil/navylifema

10.

Cottey

Edmunds

Forster

(2002). The second generation problematic: Rethinking democracy and civil-military relations. Armed Forces & Society, 29, 31–56.

11.

Danish

S. J.

Antonides

B. J.

(2013). The challenges of reintegration for service members and their families. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 83, 550–558.

12.

Donahue

J. D.

(1989). The privatization decision: Public ends, private means. New York, NY: Basic Books.

13.

Feaver

P. D.

(1996). The civil-military problematique: Huntington, Janowitz, and the question of civilian control. Armed Forces & Society, 23, 149–178.

14.

Gazley

Brudney

J. R.

(2007). The purpose (and perils) of government-nonprofit partnership. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36, 389–415.

15.

Heilman

J. G.

Johnson

G. W.

(1992). The politics and economics of privatization: The case of wastewater treatment. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.

16.

Higate

P. R.

(2001). Theorizing continuity: From military to civilian life. Armed Forces & Society, 27, 443–460.

17.

Huntington

S. P.

(1957). The soldier and the state: The theory of politics and civil-military relations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

18.

Janowitz

(1960). The professional soldier: A social and political portrait. London, England: The Free Press of Glencoe Collier-Macmillan.

19.

Kettl

D. F.

(1993). Sharing power: Public governance and private markets. Washington, DC: Brookings.

20.

King

(2004). Using templates in the thematic analysis of text. In Cassell

Symon

(Eds.), Essential guide to qualitative methods in organizational research (pp. 256–270). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

21.

Kohn

R. H.

(1994). Out of control: The crisis in civil-military relations. The National Interest, 35, 3–17.

22.

Kudler

Porter

(2013). Building communities of care for military children and families. The Future of Children, 32, 163–185.

23.

Leal

D. L.

Nichols

(2013). Military family attitudes toward senior civilian leaders in the United States. Armed Forces & Society, 39, 53–77.

24.

Mancini

J. A.

Bowen

G. L.

Martin

J. A.

(2005). Community social organizations: A conceptual linchpin in examining families in the context of communities. Family Relations, 54, 570–582.

25.

Mayer

Kenter

R. C.

(2015). The prevailing elements of public-sector collaboration. In Morris

J. C.

Miller-Stevens

(Eds.), Advancing collaboration theory: Models, typologies, and evidence (pp. 43–64). New York, NY: Routledge.

26.

Mohr

Spekman

(1994). Characteristics of partnership success: Partnership attributes, communication behavior, and conflict resolution techniques. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 135–152.

27.

Morris

J. C.

Gibson

W. A.

Leavitt

W. M.

Jones

S. C.

(2013). The case for grassroots collaboration: Social capital and ecosystem restoration at the local level. Lantham, MD: Lexington Press.

28.

Morris

J. C.

Lombard

J. R.

Leavitt

W. M.

(2008). Developing infrastructure through the use of tax increment financing: The case of the Virginia Beach Town Center Project. Public Works Management & Policy, 13, 92–99.

29.

Peters

B. G.

(1998). Managing horizontal government: The politics of co-ordination. Public Administration, 76, 295–311.

30.

Rahbek-Clemmensen

Archer

E. M.

Barr

Belkin

Guerrero

Hall

Swain

K. E. O.

(2012). Conceptualizing the military-civilian gap: A research note. Armed Forces & Society, 38, 669–678.

31.

Reed

J. B.

(2013). GI jobs. State Legislatures, 39, 42–45.

32.

Ricks

T. E

. (1997, 7). The widening gap between the military and society. Atlantic Monthly, pp. 66–78.

33.

Rubin

(2012). Civilian social work with veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan: A call to action. Social Work, 57, 293–296.

34.

Savas

E. S.

(1987). Privatization: The key to better government. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.

35.

Savitsky

Illingsworth

DuLaney

(2009). Civilian social work: Serving the military and veteran populations. Social Work, 54, 327–339.

36.

Schiff

(1995). Civil-military relations reconsidered: A theory of concordance. Armed Forces & Society, 22, 7–24.

37.

Shields

P. M.

(2006). Civil-military relations: Changing frontiers. Public Administration Review, 66, 924–928.

38.

Smith

(1951). American democracy and military power. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

39.

Stretch

R. H.

Figley

C. R.

(1984). Combat and the Vietnam veteran: Assessment of psychosocial adjustment. Armed Forces and Society, 10, 311–319.

40.

Tanielian

Jaycox

L. H.

(Eds.). (2008). Invisible wounds of war: Psychological and cognitive injuries, their consequences and services to assist recovery. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

41.

Tessler

Rosenheck

Gamache

(2003). Homeless veterans of the mil-volunteer force: A social selection perspective. Armed Forces & Society, 29, 509–524.

42.

U.S. Department of Defense. (2013). Statistical report on the military retirement system: Fiscal year 2012. Retrieved from http://actuary.defense.gov/Portals/15/Documents/statbook12.pdf

43.

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. (2014). Veteran population: National center for veterans analysis and statistics. Retrieved from http://www.va.gov/vetdata/veteran_population.asp

44.

U.S. Office of the Secretary of the Navy. (2005). SECNAV Instruction 1754.7A. Retrieved from http://doni.daps.dla.mil/Directives/01000%20Military%20Personnel%20Support/01-700%20Morale,%20Community%20and%20Religious%20Services/1754.7A.pdf

45.

Williams

A. P.

(2015). The development of collaboration theory: Typologies and systems approaches. In Morris

J. C.

Miller-Stevens

(Eds.), Advancing collaboration theory: Models, typologies, and evidence (pp. 14–42). New York, NY: Routledge.

46.

Yin

R. K.

(1981). The case study crisis: Some answers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 58–65.