Research and analysis

Understanding Service personnel satisfaction with their lived experience of the Future Accommodation Model pilot: Executive Summary

Published 19 September 2023

Research authors

This research was undertaken by the Ministry of Defence, with support from their advisors Deloitte LLP. The conclusions and findings presented in this report are the sole views of the Ministry of Defence and reflect the information and assumptions gathered during the research in 2021 and are subject to the limitations detailed in the Annex. This research was completed in January 2022 during the Future Accommodation Model (FAM) Pilot programme. The research findings have been used to inform the development of a new accommodation offer for the UK Armed Forces, which was announced in September 2023. The MOD considered various options for the design of a new accommodation offer and the policy announced in 2023 may not reflect pilot policy in its entirety. The reader should note this context when reading this report.

List of abbreviations

APF Accommodation Preference Form

CEA Continuity of Education Allowance

DIN Defence Intelligence Notice

DIO Defence Infrastructure Organisation

EDM Expectations Disconfirmation Model

FAD Future Assignment Date

FAM Future Accommodation Model

FHTB Forces Help to Buy

FTRS(FC) Full Time Reserve Service (Full Commitment)

HMNB His Majesty’s Naval Base

JPA Joint Personnel Administration

JSP Joint Service Publication

LoS Length of Service

LTR Long Term Relationship

LTR(E) Long Term Relationship (Established)

LTR(R) Long Term Relationship (Registered)

MOD Ministry of Defence

MOH Maintain Own Home

MRS Market Research Society

OF Officer

OR Other Rank

PR Preserved Rights

PRS Private Rental Sector

PStat Cat Personnel Status Category

RAF Royal Air Force

RWA Residence at Work Address

SFA Service Family Accommodation

SLA Single Living Accommodation

SP Service Person/Service Personnel

SPR Selected Place of Residence

SSFA Substitute Service Family Accommodation

SSSA Substitute Service Single Accommodation

TP Transitional Protection

UIN Unit Identification Number

HR Unit Human Resources

Introduction

Since September 2019, the MOD has been piloting a new way of supplying living accommodation to Service Personnel (SP) and their families under the Future Accommodation Model (FAM) pilot policy, which aims to:

• provide more choice to SP over where, how, and with whom they live

• provide SP with an accommodation subsidy based on need, rather than rank or relationship status

• enable SP to remain mobile whilst providing support if they want greater stability for themselves and their family 

The FAM pilot offers subsidised accommodation options at or near the duty unit. The accommodation options in the FAM Pilot include Service Family Accommodation (SFA), Single Living Accommodation (SLA), renting a property in the Private Rental Sector (PRS), and maintaining your own home (MOH).

The FAM pilot began in 2019 at HMNB Clyde (Faslane), followed by Aldershot Garrison (Aldershot) and RAF Wittering (Wittering) in 2020. The three pilot sites tested the new policy, its delivery, SP experience, and uptake of different accommodation options.

The MOD designed a qualitative research project in June 2021 to understand the impact of the FAM policy on SP satisfaction. The research aimed to understand how satisfied SP were with FAM policy and SP decision making about their accommodation. The overall research objective was ‘to demonstrate whether the FAM pilot had improved the accommodation offer for SP by offering more choice and increasing satisfaction with the lived experience’.

The research applied two qualitative data collection methods: 60-minute (individual) research sessions (with known participants) and 60-minute large audience conversations (with anonymous participants). The data collection was undertaken during September and October 2021. Due to COVID-19, the data collection was conducted remotely using Microsoft Teams and the Remesh online platform. The benefits and limitations of the research design and data collection are noted in detail in the Annex to this report.

The research participants were SP and their spouses and partners. A total of 69 research contributions were achieved: 50 from the individual research sessions (60-minute conversations) and 19 from the large audience conversations (60-minute group sessions). Table 1 provides a summary of the research participants from the pilot sites by officers (OF) and other ranks (OR).

Table 1: Population at the FAM pilot sites and research participants

Pilot site population and summary of research participants	Aldershot Officers	Aldershot Other Ranks	HMNB Clyde Officers	HMNB Clyde Other Ranks	Wittering Officers	Wittering Other Ranks	Totals
Total Service personnel	579	3004	555	3386	160	790	8474
Research sessions participants: SP	14	4	7	4	9	7	45
Research sessions participants: Spouses / partners of SP	0	0	1	0	2	2	5
Large audience conversation participants (all SP)	8	2	1	0	4	4	19
Total research contributions	22	6	9	4	15	13	69

Table 1 note: population figures were extracted from the Joint Personnel Administration (JPA) system in August 2021.

These 69 research contributions were not confirmed as unique contributions as participants in the research sessions may have attended the anonymous large audience conversations.

Key conclusions

The FAM needs-based accommodation allocation model policy was received positively by most research participants. FAM policy has supported research participants with meeting individual needs or needs of their families and dependents by expanding accommodation choice on where they live, how they live, and whom they live with. This expanded choice has improved the accommodation offer for most research participants under FAM, especially for those research participants who were in MOH or PRS (non-service accommodation); research participants in non-service accommodation generally reported greater satisfaction with their accommodation choice when compared with research participants in service accommodation (SLA or SFA).

Headline findings

This executive summary presents the findings from the qualitative research. While these findings are based on a broad group of SPs and some spouses and partners, these findings are neither representative of the SP population at the FAM pilot sites nor reflective of the entire Armed Forces. The findings refer to research participants, that refer to all research participants, including the spouses and partners of SP.

The FAM needs-based accommodation allocation model was received positively by most research participants, who also acknowledged that the expanded accommodation options under FAM contributed to meeting SP accommodation needs and overall satisfaction.

These positive views were consistent across the Services, the pilot sites, different accommodation options, and for those SP on FAM and not on FAM. Table 2 presents an overall summary of sentiment towards FAM policy.

Table 2: FAM policy understanding and applicability (61 responses)

Question	Negative	Neutral	Positive
What did you understand FAM might do for you / what did you initially think of FAM?	12	10	39

Table 2 note: 61 responses because not all 69 participants answered the question.

Some officers were less positive about FAM policy, as the shift from a rank-based to a needs-based accommodation entitlement under FAM policy directly impacted officer accommodation entitlement. In addition, some officers expressed concern about the emerging mixed rank living areas, a result of accommodation allocation based on needs as opposed to rank, and its potential impact on the hierarchical and socio-cultural systems in the Services.

Most of the officers reporting this concern had not experienced living in mixed rank areas during the pilot.

Research participants were generally more satisfied with their accommodation choice when they owned their homes or when in privately rented accommodation (non-service accommodation) regardless of whether they were on FAM.

The satisfaction of research participants in service accommodation was more varied than those of research participants in non-service accommodation. These varied responses were balanced with a recognition that SLA and SFA were subsidised, offering lower costs to SP, costs that research participants felt could not be matched to non-service (private) accommodation.

Table 3 presents an overall summary of agreement or disagreement with the statement on satisfaction with the accommodation.

Table 3: Satisfaction with accommodation option (45 responses)

Question	Negative	Neutral	Positive
Agreement or disagreement with the following statement: My FAM accommodation / accommodation option has had a positive impact on my satisfaction with accommodation.	2	7	36

Table 3 note: 45 responses because not all 69 participants answered the question.

The administrative experience of being allocated FAM options was inconsistent across the pilot sites.

While the FAM Cells (specialist teams at the three pilot sites) positively contributed to supporting SP through the administrative process, some of the experiences with the more generalist clerks and administrators, who were less familiar with FAM, was at times less positive. In addition, some SP highlighted difficulties in registering long-term relationships in the human resources systems.

SP initially held low or no expectations around their physical accommodation when they joined service. Some reported the word ‘accommodation’ was a military term associated with service provided accommodation that was temporary; however, these initial expectations increased or changed with life-stages, career needs, and international experiences.

FAM policy has supported SP, non-married or in long-term relationships, with meeting their individual needs or needs of their families and dependents by expanding accommodation choice.

There were differences between officers and other ranks, as some other ranks reported greater difficulty in understanding policy and navigating administration to match the accommodation to their needs.

In contrast, the adjustment for most officers was not as demanding, as some officers continued to benefit from housing entitlement assigned by rank offered through Transitional Protection (TP).

Officers chose TP because they believed that other FAM options would leave them unable to meet their accommodation needs fully; TP has delivered this protection with regards to accommodation, resulting in satisfaction with TP under FAM.

Table 4 presents an overall summary of agreement or disagreement with the statement on accommodation meeting personal housing requirements.

Table 4: Accommodation meeting personal requirements (60 responses)

Question	Negative	Neutral	Positive
Agreement or disagreement with the following statement: My current accommodation meets my personal housing requirements.	5	7	48

Table 4 note: 60 responses because not all 69 participants answered the question.

FAM policy has expanded choice on where SP live, how SP live, and whom SP live with.

Decision making on accommodation has been led by personal needs over professional demands, i.e., SP were more likely to frame choices around their prioritised personal needs and what was best for their immediate family/best for them in meeting medium to longer-term needs rather than the immediate career demands.

Decision making on accommodation generally followed three steps: (1) an assessment of the current living situation and what was needed in the immediate and medium terms; (2) understanding accommodation policy and how that policy could support them; and (3) reviewing available accommodation choices, and the availability of suitable accommodation was an important factor in final decision making.

A distinction on the ‘where’ was drawn between living in accommodation on-base (inside the wire), in military communities (SFA estates) and living in civilian communities, where community dynamics on-base and in military communities were a greater consideration for officer cohorts.

In addition, some SP choice on where they lived was restricted or limited due to their roles and responsibilities, e.g., commanding officers, and some SP may have been required to live on-base for operational effectiveness.

FAM policy has expanded choice on ‘how’ some SP live and specific choices around how much or how little SP commute between accommodation and the base unit, whether they adopt a hybrid model of working and work from home (where possible), and how SP incorporate lifestyle and activity preferences, such as choosing more rural settings to base themselves and locating themselves closer to support networks, family and geographic areas of interest.

FAM policy has expanded choice on ‘whom’ SP live with, and some SP have included wider family members in their consideration of accommodation, adding these family members, especially ageing parents, directly in their accommodation or they have selected accommodation that was nearby.

Community inclusion and connection were important for some SP, regardless of whether in service or non-service accommodation. Some SP reported strong preferences to be around like-minded people and a clear separation between their job roles and relationships in the communities they lived in.

SP viewed stability as generally incompatible with military service, as well as being an outcome that is determined by where they lived, how they lived and whom they lived with.

Increased accommodation choice under FAM has provided greater stability for the families and dependents of SP. This stability often centred around meeting children’s education needs and spouse/partner employment and was primarily supported through homeownership (under FAM or not).

SP in the Navy and RAF were more likely to report they had fewer locations that were relevant to their roles, and therefore the locations of future postings were more predictable. This was different for Army SP, who mostly reported that the numerous Army locations meant that for some SP, future postings were less predictable.

FAM options did not impact the ability for SP to remain mobile to do their jobs.

Generally, the SLA and SFA accommodation options were more likely to support those SP who prioritised mobility due to the relative ease of transferring into or out of these accommodation options.

The PRS and MOH offered greater challenges in supporting mobility due to the effort required in selling owned property or modifying rental lease agreements. Some SP chose SLA or SFA to provide the mobility to meet their professional requirements and career ambitions.

FAM policy has broadened accommodation options for SP to live on-site or within a commutable distance from their duty units, and this has resulted in some SP modifying their workplace boundaries and considering different commuting options.

Generally, SP in SLA, SFA, and PRS were more likely to report positive commuting experiences into their base units. In contrast, some SP who owned their own homes had prioritised other needs, e.g., children’s schooling in their accommodation choice, resulting in longer commutes, as well as split accommodation arrangements involving the SP at home and in SLA, all being accepted trade-offs.

The 50-mile radius requirement delivered different commuting options and experiences when applied to all pilot sites; rural locations offered fewer commuting options, while sites with greater congestion and traffic mean that commutes may be longer and unmanageable daily.

SP welcomed the payments offered under the PRS and MOH FAM options, and these payments improved satisfaction with the accommodation.

The PRS option has provided SP with increased choice and supported SP accommodation needs; however, there were differences in rental accommodation availability due to the varied housing/rental markets across the pilot sites, and some SP reported that rental payments were not always reflective of the fast-moving rental sector prices, requiring greater SP financial contributions. These financial considerations factored into why some SP did not consider PRS a suitable accommodation option.

The MOH Core Payments were not an important factor in the choice of SP to own and maintain their homes, as most SP had already made a choice to own their homes to meet their needs and then considered and welcomed this additional payment support.

First time home buyers were more satisfied with FAM policy due to the support received beyond the Core Payment, i.e., FAM Refund of Legal Expenses; however, even this additional support was not considered an important factor in the decision to buy a home, with some SP noting that the Forces Help to Buy (FHTB) scheme was the greatest influence in their decision to buy a home. These payments, although not financially significant to most SP, contributed to overall satisfaction and were welcomed support from the MOD.

The MOH Core Payment was used to offset general living costs, and as this payment was bundled with SP wages, it was not viewed as a separate payment. Some SP did assign the Core Payments to a specific expense, such as council tax or utility bills. Some SP raised concerns that they might be financially worse off if they stopped receiving the Core Payments if they were assigned to a non-FAM site or if the FAM pilot was stopped.