Research and analysis

Overseas LTRE Pilot Evaluation: Implementation interviews research report

Published 11 May 2026

List of abbreviations

DPIA Data Protection Impact Assessment

GDPR General Data Protection Regulation

JPA Joint Personnel Administration

LTR(E) Established Long-Term Relationship

MOD Ministry of Defence

RAF Royal Air Force

RN Royal Navy

SP Service personnel

Summary

In January 2024, the Ministry of Defence (MOD) launched the ‘Accompanied Established Long-Term Relationships (LTR(E)) Overseas Pilot’. 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. In-depth interviews were undertaken with staff involved in the design of the pilot policy and/or delivering the pilot (for example, processing accommodation, visas, allowances and welfare). This report only focuses on the findings from the implementation interviews.

Participants felt the pilot had been successfully implemented. The findings indicated positive and effective collaboration across teams during the design and implementation of the pilot. Participants were able to provide a rationale for why specific locations were chosen as pilot sites. Policy casework was reported to be handled flexibly and efficiently. The main positive outcome of the pilot cited was ‘parity’ of treatment for LTR(E) SP and families in welfare assessments and wraparound provisions compared to married/civil partnered SP.

Participants were able to provide a rationale for why specific locations were chosen as pilot sites. However, the evidence used for selecting specific pilot locations was largely anecdotal, rather than based on a set criterion or framework. Decisions regarding the pilot policy and implementation were cited as rapid, which was stated as a positive. However, participants also felt the speed meant some documents were not fully reviewed and decisions not formally logged. The process to change Personal Status Categories at the end of the Preserved Rights period had not been fully communicated which risked the incorrect entitlement being given. Delays to the Modernised Accommodation Offer (MAO) launch and a lack of confirmed policy or announcements regarding preserved rights have created uncertainty about LTR(E) SP maintaining access to SFA and allowances on return to the UK.

1. Introduction

In January 2024, the Overseas Accommodation Policy Team within the Ministry of Defence (MOD) launched the ‘Accompanied Established Long-Term Relationship (LTR(E)) Overseas Pilot’. 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.

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

In-depth interviews were undertaken with staff involved in the design of the pilot policy and/or delivering the pilot (for example, processing accommodation, visas, allowances and welfare). Interviews were intended to be conducted at each pilot location but occurred only for Cyprus. Participants included:

• Overseas Accommodation Policy Team members

• UK Strategic Command Representative(s), as leads of the pilot

• Overseas unit lead and personnel

• Unit HR

• Housing and Welfare Staff

• Armed Forces Remuneration Team Staff

The interviews primarily aimed to answer the process evaluation research questions, alongside other data collected as part of the evaluation:

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

• What aspects of the pilot implementation have worked well?

• What aspects of the pilot implementation could be improved?

• How, if at all, did the above vary by location?

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 implementation interviews. It contains more detail than the process evaluation report, although there is some repetition.

2. Methodology

Qualitative data was collected through one-to-one research interviews with individuals involved in the design and implementation of the pilot.

Interviews were selected as the primary method as they allowed for a more in-depth and nuanced assessment of process evaluation research questions than quantitative methods, such as surveys, would have provided. Interviews enabled researchers to use techniques including probing to draw-out insights into implementation successes and challenges. Interviews were selected over focus groups as each participant held distinct roles in the design and delivery of the pilot and therefore unique experiences to report. Interviews also avoided any groupthink or aversion to answering the question fully due to opposing points of view or differing military ranks/civilian grades of participant, which may occur in focus groups. Interviews also accommodated practical challenges of geographically dispersed participants across different time-zones.

2.1 Sample and recruitment

Purposive sampling was used to identify staff who had been involved in the design and implementation of the pilot and policy. This method ensured participants had direct experience of the pilot implementation and could provide detailed insights into their experiences. However, this method of sample could exclude other voices who may have been on the periphery of implementation and could have also provided valuable insight. There were 14 staff members identified and recruited to participate in the interviews and 13 interviews were completed. All teams involved in the policy design and implementation were represented in the interviews.

Participation in the research was voluntary. Prior to taking part in the research, participants were given an information sheet detailing information about the research. Each participant provided consent for their data to be collected, analysed, and reported on.

2.2 Data collection

The interviews lasted between 40 and 60 minutes. Data collection took place between November and December 2024. Participants responded to questions from a Government Social Researcher. The interviews were conducted via Microsoft Teams.

The interviews 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 interview 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. Interview questions were tailored to specific roles and responsibilities of participants to understand how the policy was created and communicated, staffing, administrative systems and how/whether the pilot was implemented as intended.  

2.3 Data analysis

Interview 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 68 codes and their respective definitions. Codes from three randomly selected interview transcripts (~20% of interviews) were quality assured by Government Social Researchers using Cohen’s Kappa Coefficient (k) (Hallgren (2012), Hassan (2024), Cole (2023), McHugh (2012)). Results showed perfect agreement between the primary research and quality assurer in the application of codes.

Researchers meaningfully grouped and organised codes into 16 themes during two workshops to draw out wider insights and answer research questions. Themes were quality assured by a Government Operational Researcher. Cohen’s Kappa Coefficient was used to review the agreement on three transcripts. Results showed perfect agreement between the primary researcher and quality assurer in the application of themes.

The evaluation lead wrote-up findings and disseminated these to stakeholders as part of interim evaluation findings agreed in the evaluation design.

Codes and themes were presented to stakeholders according to primary and secondary process evaluation research questions and findings were reviewed and quality assured by a GSR member.

2.4 Ethics and Quality Assurance

As defined under JSP 536 Defence research involving human participants (JSP 536) - GOV.UK, 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 within the MOD by other Government Social Researchers. The research plan, including methodology and data analysis were quality assured by a Principal Government Social Researcher.

• Specific and informed consent was gained from respondents at the start of the interview. Respondents could not proceed until they had provided their consent. Respondents could withdraw from the interview 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 within the survey in line with GDPR. A Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) was completed and approved, and data 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 both a Government Social Researcher within the Accommodation Analysis Team and a Government Social Researcher external to the Accommodation Team, but within MOD. This ensured the report met MOD and Government Social Research profession standards.

2.5 Limitations of research

Qualitative Biases: Qualitative research contains inherent biases which can affect the validity and reliability of the research:

• Social desirability bias – interview participants may have provided answers they believed the researcher/other teams may want to hear rather than genuine thoughts, thereby impacting the reliability of answers and results.

• Recall bias – participants were asked to remember past events such as early pilot decisions and consequently, recollections of these events may be inaccurate or incomplete. During interviews, participants were able to access emails or other materials to facilitate their recollection, and questions did not require participants to recall events more than 2 years prior, therefore limiting risks of this bias.

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

Causality: Qualitative research (interviews) cannot provide causality. This means the results should not be used to make definite conclusions about the pilot, for example ‘there is and will be sufficient housing at pilot locations’. Once published in its entirety, the evaluation will be able to provide more robust conclusions regarding the effectiveness of the pilot and implementation.

Timing of interviews: The pilot officially launched 10 to 11 months prior to interviews, therefore, there is a possibility new challenges and/or successes may emerge in the future which the research will not capture. Continuous monitoring and evaluation is therefore required to ensure the pilot continues to meet intended objectives and mitigate negative outcomes.

3. Findings

The findings are presented to address each primary research question. Quotes used in this report have been provided from the interview transcripts. They have only been edited for grammatical errors, clarity and brevity.

When presenting findings, ‘overseas bases/units’ refers to housing officers, welfare officers and unit leads, and ‘Head Office/Policy’ refers to Accommodation Policy Team, UK Strategic Command and allowance leads who took part in interviews.

3.1 Research Question: To what extent has the pilot been delivered as intended?

Theme: Defence Instruction and Notice, Communications and Assurances

During the launch and initial phases of the pilot, a formal policy within a Joint Service Publication (JSP), had not been created and published. As an interim, a Defence Instruction and Notice (DIN) was created which outlined the intended policy, entitlements and application process for the pilot. It provided instructions to staff and SP about the pilot. During implementation interviews, the DIN was cited as receiving correct assurances and all participants felt it was clear and well communicated to teams (UK and overseas) involved in designing and implementing the pilot.

Yes, yes, absolutely so there was a set policy which detailed the application form and the core information to both units and personnel seeking to apply. [Overseas Base]

Overall, Head Office participants noted minimal or no issues during the pilot implementation and felt the DIN contained all necessary information. However, interviews with participants from overseas bases identified a formal implementation document was not provided. While the DIN set out the aims, entitlements and applications process for the pilot i.e., telling people what to do, an implementation plan would have detailed how to operationalise the policy/DIN, specifically for delivery teams:

I wouldn’t say that I’ve ever seen an implementation plan. I’ve seen a DIN about it that tells the detail of what we’re going to try and achieve, but really that’s an outward communication to our people about how it’s going to be managed. I think although that is kind of used loosely as a planning document, it’s not quite the same as having an implementation order. [Front Line Command]

Some overseas bases felt further assistance could have been provided to interpret and implement the pilot policy. Overseas bases received nuanced queries and experienced instances of the DIN/policy being self-adjusted and interpreted differently by themselves or others.

It would have been possibly useful for FamSec and the unit administrators to have done something where they fully understood eligibility a little bit better. We’ve probably had to learn that on the hoof as we’ve gone along, purely because as much as eligibility seemed like it was covered by the policy, there were occasions where the policy was a little bit woolly. [Overseas Base]

Policy doesn’t cover everything and there will be nuances where people make their own understanding and judgment on what they think should be. [Overseas Base]

There was some of the policy that I just I interpreted different to what someone else said, and it was that whole when they can apply if you’re already in Cyprus, how long you had to apply to get an SFA, that type of thing. [Overseas Base]

However, overseas teams reported feeling able to go to policy and Head Office for issues or urgent challenges.

From an audit perspective, we were conducting assurance, oversight of the processes, and the data being captured as consequence…and then any issues being raised to us obviously then we were engaging with and seeking to resolve whatever issue is. [Overseas Base]

It [the DIN] did contain all the details that we needed, but as we progressed there were nuances with the relationships, with the queries that came through from the units and stations. And the good thing was that we did have, I think it was monthly or bimonthly meetings…So, we were able to raise those issues and concerns quite rapidly and get the answers. [Overseas Base]

Whilst Head Office felt the implementation plan (which was only the DIN) and pilot commencement was clearly and well communicated, some from overseas bases felt the pilot commencement could have been better communicated.

Participant: actually, when I logged in from Christmas leave, the first I knew about it [pilot starting] was on the Defence Intranet. Interviewer: You weren’t told by anyone on site? Participant: we knew it was coming, but we hadn’t been told. [Overseas Base]

3.2 Research Question: What aspects of the pilot implementation have worked well?

Theme: Policy Design and Decision Making

All participants in implementation interviews reported positive and effective collaboration across teams during the design and implementation of the pilot. Participants felt there was good teamwork, shared objectives, collaboration, excellent stakeholder relationships and efficiency in the Accommodation Policy Team:

People have got the same aim and going for it and that’s been really nice. So, I would say it’s probably the most positive beneficial stakeholder work I’ve done in my time here. [Head Office]

What worked well was making sure that certainly us and UK Strat Comm were aligned in what we wanted from the pilot. UK Strat Comm did a really good document that sort of outlined reasonings for why, what they wanted, what they wanted from us, etc., and then we could write the policy as well, making sure we were aligned in where we wanted to go. [Head Office]

We were quite collegiate I think with the TLBs and with the accommodation policy team. [Head Office]

Participants also cited momentum from the Senior Leadership visit to Cyprus in November 2023 as a key success to establishing collective support and building relationships to ensure the design, launch and implementation of the pilot.

The Cyprus visit with [2*] … I think on the back of that visit we discussed how we could fast track implementation and implement a pilot. [Overseas Base]

We had a good relationship with those already on the ground having been on previous visits there, so there was a good relationship. [Head Office]

While decisions were referred to as “rapid”, most interview participants believed “appropriate governance” processes had still been followed and the pace of decisions was an essential part of pushing the policy forward and successfully launching the pilot.

There was no lack of planning, but it was done at pace and without the bells and whistles but delivered that which it needed to deliver in a pretty speedy time frame. [Head Office]

When it came to those kinds of decisions, we did make sure they also went through the appropriate governance. [Head Office]

Rather than procrastinate because it’s easy to throw up an amber card and things start to slow down and then the momentum goes out of it. I think it was maintaining the momentum was probably the key bit. [Head Office]

Theme: Pilot locations

Participants were able to provide a rationale for why specific locations were chosen as pilot sites. This included:

• Ease of implementation (no legal/visa concerns, and on-site support/buy-in)

• Locations were British Overseas Territories i.e., under British protectorate

• Acceptance of non-married and/or single sex relationships

• Sufficient accommodation availability

The ease in which we could implement something in those areas without it being too onerous in terms of legislation with the overseas terminology. We already own all the housing in Cyprus and the Falkland Islands. We know that there was a surplus of housing, so we weren’t going to drive any bad behaviours or drive-up costs, and we had a good relationship with those already on the ground. [Head Office]

However, the evidence used for selecting specific pilot locations was largely anecdotal and/or not mentioned by participants. Tacit knowledge and ease of implementation were frequently cited rather than a set criteria or framework for selecting locations based on robust evidence.

Decisions regarding the pilot locations were also viewed positively as participants did not cite cultural challenges with local customs when implementing the pilot – indicating appropriate sites were selected. Requests to add new bases were carefully considered and some new bases have since been added which was seen as a positive to increase the pilot offer in other locations.

Very quickly they approached Commander Cyprus and asked can we get on? And so, we added them on three months later. [Head Office]

Theme: Casework

Policy casework was reported to be handled flexibly and efficiently. Participants highlighted the effectiveness of monthly/bi-monthly meetings to address casework, and multiple casework channels for SP to receive bespoke support. 

We can make an allowance because when we make policy, we make it for like 80% like an 80:20 rule. So, for the most part for everyone this is the general rule, but we recognise that there will be certain cases. We didn’t feel that we needed to change the policy based on one case. We can make casework for them, and then if there’s a pattern, we then look to sort of see if it does need adjusting. [Head Office]

The good thing was that we did have, I think it was monthly or bimonthly. We had meetings with [name] and UK Strat Comm and People Accommodation Team to discuss any issues and concerns. So, we were able to raise those issues and concerns quite rapidly and get the answers. [Overseas Base]

Five participants highlighted the ability for LTR(E) SP already at pilot locations during the launch to join the pilot as a success. This decision was stated to showcase how implementation teams and overseas bases were able to flexibly accommodate SP and handle casework.

I think the big one is the discussion that we had about how can we deal with people that are in situ…So actually what we wanted to do was make a policy exemption for the start of the pilot…and that’s when we came up with the whole ‘you’ve got three months to the point of launch to apply so you can get your life in order, make that quite profound decision and not have to make it quickly, and then you’ve got until the end of the school year to move so that we weren’t abetting children’s schooling.’…I think it was fair and seems to land well because we had quite an influx straight away of people that were in situ that then moved their partners over. [Head Office]

Theme: Parity for Service personnel

The main positive outcome of the pilot cited in implementation interviews was ‘parity’. Participants reported LTR(E) SP and families received parity in treatment, welfare assessments and wraparound provisions compared to married/civil partnered SP.

Overseas bases stated parity in treatment, assessments and provisions made their jobs easier because the processes/policies already existed and remained the same.

Again, core principle: treat them as if they’re married. [Head Office]

Welfare wise, we are providing the same support that we do to any married couple. [Overseas Base]

SP got the support as if they were married or in a civil partnership and therefore, I think it was from my view, a seamless transposition of policy onto those in the pilot scheme. [Overseas Base]

The use of a formal, live list of participants on the pilot scheme was felt to enable parity of treatment.

There was a formalised list of those who were on the pilot scheme, who we could then take as the formal authority for extending our policies to include those people in those locations. [Overseas Base]

No participants reported differences in quality or housing assignment between LTR(E) SP and married/civil partnered SP, despite the overall quality of housing being cited as poor.

Interviewer: were any adaptations to the housing process needed to ensure families were accommodated appropriately? Participant: Didn’t need to. It was the same housing that we offered to everyone. [Overseas Base]

Participants cited no complaints or concerns from SP regarding the pilot. One participant felt the number of overall complaints had reduced because of the provisions and parity provided by the pilot.

Some even saying complaints reduced because of the pilot: not that I had much visibility of it anyway. But you know, there were definitely conversations that were had, you know, before the pilot that are no longer had because of the pilot. [Overseas Base]

Some participants also felt the pilot had contributed to an overall increase in SP satisfaction and positive perceptions of the MOD/ Service as a modern employer. It had led to fewer shot-gun marriages and more SP volunteering for overseas roles:

There’s a real perception of feeling invested in as an LTR(E) and that the Defence is looking to become a more modern employer whereby you don’t have to get married in order to be entitled to accommodation for your family, which is much more in line with modern family dynamics. [Head Office]

There have been a few people have said I thought overseas was never going to be an option because we were never married. So yeah, I have seen, there has been a slight increase of people now putting themselves forward for jobs because they now know they don’t have to get married. [Overseas Base]

I know of three people that I’ve had direct interactions with who have because of the pilot opted to come [to Cyprus]. [Overseas Base]

Evidence for reduced shotgun marriages and increased satisfaction and volunteering overseas are only anecdotal. One participant noted outcomes such as volunteering to be posted overseas is a “very hard metric to try and judge. [Overseas Base]

3.3 Research Question: What aspects of the pilot implementation could be improved?

Themes: Rationale for pilot

During implementation interviews, all participants were able to provide an understanding and cite reasons for creating the pilot. Reasons for the pilot included:

• Modernising Defence

• Improving the overseas offer

• Reducing ‘shotgun marriages’

• Increasing overseas volunteers (particularly Falklands)

• Improving recruitment and retention

• Creating parity between LTR(E) and married/civil partnership SP

Society is developing, so I think by acknowledging more and more people are in long-term relationships and acknowledging that within the Armed Forces was part of the recruiting and retention initiative as well. [Overseas Base]

Yet, the reasons were not always consistent and were often based on anecdotal evidence and insights gained following a visit to Cyprus, rather than robust, systematic evidence. Some participants cited the pilot objective as creating parity between married/civil partnered SP and LTR(E) SP while others cited the objective as increasing overseas volunteering in the Falklands.

Armed forces personnel can’t travel unless they’re married, and I think there was some evidence to show that quite a lot of particularly younger members of the armed forces were getting married quite quickly in order to be able to take up overseas posts and it was considered that it wasn’t necessarily an ideal situation for young people to find themselves in. [Head Office]

This quotation may highlight accurate experiences; however, the evidence is anecdotal, and no robust sources were referenced.

It was my personal experiences of serving and having seen those mental breakdowns and the amount of personnel I’ve seen both the serving personnel and their partners seeing their lives shattered through making life changing decisions they weren’t ready for, so that was my driver. What the driver for the department was, I can’t say I’m afraid. [Head Office]

Preliminary findings of the implementation interviews were shared with stakeholders, as outlined in the evaluation protocol. Since then, stakeholders have already taken corrective action and created a document formally outlining existing papers, evidence, rationales, and key decisions used to inform the pilot and pilot locations.

Theme: Pilot locations

Similarly, while participants provided a rationale for chosen sites, these were not always the same across interviews or formally noted. Decisions and evidence used to decide pilot sites also relied on tactic/anecdotal knowledge and ease of implementation, rather than a set criteria or framework for selecting locations based on robust evidence.

Head Office teams also noted negative feedback and challenges from the Royal Navy regarding pilot locations particularly, the exclusion of Gibraltar.

Navy didn’t feel like they were particularly involved in this, because there’s not much Navy presence in Cyprus…which is why they were pushing really hard for Gibraltar. But the way that the overseas bases work, it doesn’t necessarily work like that. So, getting people to understand that actually we can’t do all sites straight away was one of the difficult ones. [Head Office]

Theme: Rapid decision making

Decisions were cited as rapid, which as stated above was a necessary positive. However, participants also felt the speed meant some documents were not fully reviewed and decisions not formally logged:

The pace at which it happened was a challenge. [Head Office]

We didn’t make a full decisions log and that’s one of the things I wish we did…I didn’t have a separate spreadsheet going of who would sign these things off because of moving so quickly. [Head Office]

When it was first published in January, I think the DIN still had draft [watermark on it]. I don’t think it was properly looked at before it got published. I think it did get to me. I think it got rushed through. [Overseas Base]

Theme: Present Challenges

Personal Status Categories: Implementation interviews also raised challenges regarding Personal Status Categories (PStatCat). After 2 years of preserved rights, LTR(E) SP PStatCat should be returned from 1 to the SP’s previous PStatCat. The process of changing PStatCats is manual, under the responsibility of SP and administration staff. During interviews, participants felt the direction of changing PStatCats had not been fully communicated and there were instances where PStatCats were not changed, risking incorrect entitlement.

When they go back to UK, we have to change that into their actual PStat Category 5. That extra step that we are required to do when they come out here and when they go back, sometimes they forget. The communication wasn’t done properly on that…. we did get direction afterwards. It was only last month I think we got that direction that their PStatCat had to be changed, but we were not informed. [Overseas Base]

The main thing would be I think the change in PStatCat either when they return to the UK not changing and then them drawing further entitlements on JPA that they’re not meant to. [Head Office]

Interviewer: Was that noted as a missing step because somebody had gone back to the UK and not changed? Participant: Yes, that’s correct. I think DIO housing, they identified that because when they applied for housing back in the UK, they still had put themselves down as PStat Category 1. [Overseas Base]

Preserved Rights: An issue raised in implementation interviews was returning to the UK and preserved rights for LTR(E) SP. During implementation interviews, Head Office participants stated that SP on the pilot would receive two years of preserved rights on return to the UK following overseas assignment. Under preserved rights LTR(E) SP and partners could continue accessing SFA. Preserved rights was put in place as a temporary buffer between SP returning to the UK and the launch of the Modernised Accommodation Offer (MAO) in March 2024. However, delays to the MAO launch and a lack of set policy or announcements regarding preserved rights have created uncertainty about LTR(E) SP maintaining access to SFA and allowances on return to the UK:

Because that has all been a little bit uncertain [MAO launch]. We couldn’t necessarily just blanket announce like, ‘Oh yeah, well all staff who are coming back from Cyprus will have preserved rights until such and such a time’, could we? I think we just, we just didn’t know what was happening and because we still don’t know, we still can’t make any promises around preserved rights. [Head Office]

The only challenge that I’m aware of is the failure to launch MAO in the UK, which meant that there’s now a disparity with personnel overseas having more entitlement than the UK, which was not anticipated. [Head Office]

Schooling and Employment: An additional challenge raised during implementation interviews was limited capacity of schools and nurseries and limited partner employment opportunities. While these are issues that may impact participation in the pilot, particularly the choice for partners to accompany SP overseas, they are beyond the scope of the pilot and present wider issues in Cyprus and overseas assignments.

I know the school is saying they’re getting close to capacity…I think the issues around childcare are for everybody, not just for those on the pilot…the issues around childcare are wider than the pilot itself. [Overseas Base]

The only thing I would say is that the nursery provision in each unit has peaks and troughs in terms of available spaces…Was not a factor specifically to the trial, it’s a factor to anybody with children of that age here in Cyprus. [Overseas Base]

Civil Servants: Participants noted that only SP are entitled to the pilot, not Civil Servants who may be assigned overseas and in an LTR(E) and this creates a disparity between Civil Servants and SP.

When civilians have enquired about it, if you want to come as a long-term relationship, they’re forced to live off camp, which I don’t see that as being fair. [Overseas Base]

Allowances: Participants from overseas bases noted there were some difficulties for LTR(E) SP accessing entitled allowances, due to delays or errors in changing their PStatCat.

The first hurdle was the person couldn’t get the removals because removals didn’t have them as been entitled to moving as a family. [Overseas Base]

Theme: Future Considerations

Implementation interviews identified further considerations regarding LTR(E) and the pilot:

Under compassionate travel, spouses, civil partners, and LTR(E) partners of SP on the pilot are entitled to return home if an immediate family member becomes ill or passes away. If the MOD continues to recognise long-term relationships, the extent to which compassionate travel and allowances is offered may need further consideration. For example, if the parent of an SP is in a LTR(E), should the SP be entitled to compassionate travel if their parent’s LTR(E) partner becomes ill.

A new/official Personal Status Category for LTR(E) personnel may improve efficiency of registering SP for the pilot and ensure policies/allowances are correctly aligned and extended. In addition, it will enable the process of tracking LTR(E) SP to be transferred to JPA, rather than Excel spreadsheets.

These future considerations are likely to fall beyond the current scope of the pilot; however, may be beneficial for wider policy to consider.

Participants identified the existence of a ‘stakeholder information document’ which stated evidence and metrics of the pilot would be shared to stakeholders on a quarterly basis. The information document did not outline who was responsible for the provision of metrics and overseas bases and Head Office Stakeholders reported they had not received evidence and metrics. One participant suggested resource and capacity may be limiting the ability to collect and share data. This should be addressed in the future to ensure stakeholders remain informed and promote the pilot scheme.

3.4 Research Question: How, if at all, did the above vary by location?

During the evaluation period, there was no uptake of the pilot in locations other than Cyprus. In some cases, implementation interviews identified low uptake of the pilot was due to location and cultural factors rather than issues with the pilot itself.

Theme: Falklands

When queried during implementation interviews, participants stated there was difficulty in encouraging SP to volunteer for assignment to the South Atlantic Islands. One participant stated there was a culture/perception of the Falklands being a posting for married personnel which may be restricting uptake in this area:

Falklands, I think the biggest take away is nobody’s applied to it. We’ve had a number of part applications, but then they didn’t go and that has nothing to do with the pilot, they don’t want to go to the Falklands. [Head Office]

SP who go down to the Falklands for a year at a time and are entitled to SFA have traditionally been married, so you’re overcoming quite a cultural awareness that has developed in the whole Air Force cohort about that. [Head Office]

It [the pilot] was a way of us removing one more barrier that could have put people off, so it’s certainly worth a try. However, it turns out that actually it wasn’t much of a barrier. There are bigger barriers, i.e., people don’t want to go to the South Atlantic Islands into the cold and the freezing, freezing cold for 12 months. [Head Office]

Since the evaluation, the pilot has been offered in further locations and a small number of SP have joined on these sites. Future evaluations may be able to better capture potential variations by locations and assess location specific/cultural factors.

3.5 Research Question: To what extent is there appropriate accommodation to implement the pilot?

During implementation interviews, all participants stated housing allocation was successful and there was currently sufficient availability of SFA in Cyprus to accommodate SP and partners on the pilot.

DIO keep close tabs on how many void available houses they have in all of their locations so they can tell us how much capacity is in the system to enable this kind of trial, and the single services can tell DIO how many LTR(E) they have registered on their JPA system and on average how many of those are going to be in overseas locations so we can make sure that there was going to be sufficient accommodation. [Head Office]

However, overseas bases cited difficulties estimating housing availability in Cyprus due to a constant rotation of units. Concerns were raised about future housing availability in Cyprus, particularly due to a new infrastructure programme, ‘Project Apollo’. Project Apollo will ensure all housing in Cyprus meets seismic compliance regulations.

You don’t know how many houses are required in any in any area…you don’t know how many married or accompanying personnel are going to come with them. [Overseas Base]

Don’t get me wrong, you know there is peaks and troughs of housing availability across the board, but we’ve also got a major housing refurbishment program going on with the project Apollo. Houses been knocked down, new houses being built, so that’s the driver to availability rather than LTR having a massive impact. [Overseas Base]

3.6 Research Question: To what extent are there appropriate financial resources to implement the pilot?

While efforts were made to estimate costs and uptake of the pilot prior to launch, there were limitations to obtaining accurate figures. Formal and anecdotal evidence was collected to estimate the number of LTR(E) SP overseas, and potential uptake and cost. Total population figures for LTR(E) SP were unknown as SP are not mandated to declare their relationship status. In addition, uptake of allowances and entitlements is generally difficult to measure as these are affected by individual circumstances i.e., some SP require access to many entitlements/allowances which others do not and it is not possible to predict these accurately.

Because everyone’s experience is personal with what allowances they get. So, we know that people are going to be in long-term relationships, but we don’t know every single one of their circumstances. We didn’t know how many children there would be and that sort of stuff, so we just kind of assumed at the maximum of everything. [Head Office]

I think the reality is you don’t know the circumstance of the service person at their next assignment. You could have somebody who is married with five kids, married with no kids, not married, in a long-term relationship, whatever. [Overseas Base]

Some interview participants stated the pilot was ‘under-budget’, and reassurances were given to senior leaders that the cost of the pilot was not exceeding expectations.

I would say cheaper than expected even though there wasn’t a budget. [Head Office]

We were pretty much bang on what was the projected numbers versus where we’re at now. It has come under budget because obviously we accounted for an SP utilising everything that was made available as part of that allowance package. Not all of them either needed it or became eligible…because of that, I think it is still under budget. [Head Office]

However, this is not an entirely accurate financial picture for the pilot as costs could not be fully estimated and interview participants also stated no formal budget was created for the pilot. UK Strategic Command and Front Line Commands were absorbing housing and welfare costs, as would be the case for married/civil partnered SP. For LTR(E) SP participating in the pilot, no issues relating to fraud or not receiving allowances and entitlements were identified.

3.7 Research Question: To what extent are there appropriate human resource and administrative systems to implement the pilot?

Despite a lack of implementation plan, all participants felt the pilot had been successfully implemented and overseas bases stated they were comfortable going to policy and Head Office teams with nuanced issues, urgent challenges and casework. Both Head Office and overseas bases reported sufficient and appropriately trained staff, to implement and deliver the pilot. In addition, overseas bases felt prepared for the pilot implementation and stated their roles and responsibilities had not changed as the pilot drew on existing systems, knowledge and routine processes:

I wouldn’t say there’s been a massive change in my responsibilities. It’s just business as usual for us. [Overseas Base]

During implementation interviews, some Overseas Base participants reported a minor but manageable increase in workload during the start of the pilot caused by an influx of queries regarding the pilot, checking SP applications, resolving errors or misinterpretations of the pilot policy, and creating and maintaining manual spreadsheets to track data from the pilot.

At the start of the initial phase, it did increase the workload but it kind of settled once the pilot settled. [Overseas Base]

These ‘trackers’ were used to register and store information about SP on the pilot as JPA could not be used. During interviews, participants at Overseas Baes stated the tracker was generally not prioritised by individual units and updates were frequently delayed and/or contained errors:

[The spreadsheet] is only as good as the information provided by the unit stations…we are having to chase the units and stations every time…we always, always, always find errors. [Overseas Base]

Participants also noted they were having to check applications, data and resolve errors or misinterpretations of the pilot policy.

We are having to chase the units and stations every time more and more…It’s little nuances where probably they didn’t ask the question, or they didn’t understand, and depending on their interpretation of the policy they try to amend it…And when we do our checks, we always, always, always find errors in there and have to go back to the units to get them updated. [Overseas Base]

3.8 Research Question: To what extent are the communications and training provided to SP about the pilot effective in supporting the implementation of the pilot?

Interview participants stated a variety of channels were used to promote the pilot including campaign visits, townhalls, DefNet articles, Cyprus Personnel Leads, DefNet, FamFed Articles, British Forces News, pre-deployment briefings and the Chain of Command. Opinions regarding the effectiveness of intended communications were mixed. Some participants felt communications were effectively distributed, received, and eligible personnel and staff across services were aware of the pilot:

We flooded it in terms of the comms channels and those that actually wanted to apply were well aware and got their applications in. So the target audience was met. [Overseas Base]

However, other participants stated LTR(E) SP still had queries around eligibility, locations, applications, and preserved rights. Thereby, indicating some missing or misunderstood information as part of communication campaigns:

There was quite a lot of individuals who would then go to another area or request to be posted and then go ‘I thought that the pilot was over here as well?’…So probably some clearer comms and a roll out plan I think would be beneficial for SP to really understand what they’re getting and where they’re getting it. [Head Office]

3.9 Research Question: To what extent are preserved rights implemented as intended?

At the time of the interviews, preserved rights remained a concern for the pilot as there is no set policy or agreement regarding LTR(E) SP returning to the UK. There were only a small number of SP currently returning to the UK and preserved rights were being handled on a case-by-case basis. Delays to the MAO and a lack of set policy or announcements were cited as creating uncertainty about LTR(E) SP maintaining access to SFA and allowances on return to the UK (as noted above).

We did run into one problem for the first preserved rights couple that came back. We didn’t know how to implement them coming back from preserved rights, because that was all done very late. That was a bit of a hurdle. [Head Office]

Annexes

A.1 Annex A: Example Topic Guide Policy Team member

Introduction [5 minutes]

Thank you for volunteering to take part in this interview. I understand that you are busy, and I do really appreciate your time. You’ve been asked to participate as the Ministry of Defence (MOD) would like to speak to staff involved in the design and delivery of the Overseas Accommodation Pilot, so your view is really important to us.

I’m XXX, a Social Researcher in MOD Head Office and I work on accommodation policy related research.

[Optional] I’m also joined by my colleague X today, who will be taking some notes for analysis purposes.

As you’ll be aware, the Overseas Accommodation Pilot means Service personnel in established long-term relationships are able to serve accompanied and treated in the same way as married SP for accommodation purposes at select overseas locations.

In the Accommodation Analysis Team, we are evaluating the pilot, to understand whether it was delivered as intended, what worked well, what could be improved and the extent to which it contributed to the desired outcomes. We’ll use your feedback from today to inform the evaluation and when considering any potential changes to the pilot in the future.

The interview will take about an hour. Your participation is completely voluntary. If you do not want to take part, you are free to leave now or at any time without giving me a reason. I won’t inform your line manager or Chain of Command that you left. Likewise, they won’t be informed of anything you say in the interview. If you need to take a break during our discussion to take a phone call or go to the toilet, just let me know and we can pause. If you don’t understand something, please do let me know and I’ll do my best to rephrase the question.

You’ll have reviewed the participant information sheet and signed the consent form ahead of this session. I’ll be recording and transcribing this interview using MS Teams on my laptop. Despite this interview being transcribed, you’ll remain anonymous in the research. After the interview, the transcript will be processed by our research team to remove any information that would allow you to be linked to specific statements. Would you be happy for me to use the transcribe function on MS Teams? This will allow us to listen back to the interview and analyse the information you give us.

Please answer questions as honestly as you can – there are no right or wrong answers, and this will help ensure that the feedback I give to the policy team is correct and ultimately will hopefully improve the pilot.

Do you have any questions that you would like to ask me about the research?

Start recording

Your role [5 minutes]

• Could I please ask you to introduce yourself and describe your specific role in the pilot.

Pilot design and decision making [15 minutes]

• Can you describe the rationale for the pilot?

• Prompts if needed:

• How was the need for this pilot identified?

• What issues did you aim to address?

• What specific outcomes were you hoping to achieve?

• What, if any, specific evidence was used to inform the rationale for the pilot?

• How are decisions regarding the pilot made?

• Prompts if needed:

• How did you determine the eligibility criteria?

• How did you determine the locations for the pilot?

• How did you determine what allowances should be given?

• Were there any other factors considered during pilot design?

• If no – why not?

• If yes – was this written in a JSP/ DIN/something else? Who wrote this?

• How do you engage with key stakeholders?

• What worked well in relation to policy design and stakeholder engagement?

• What, if any, challenges did you face in relation to policy design and stakeholder engagement?

Implementation plan [15 minutes]

• Was there an official implementation plan?

• If no – why not?

• If yes – Please can you provide an overview of the implementation plan.

• Prompts if needed:

• What were the major milestones?

• How was the implementation plan communicated to the relevant stakeholders (i.e. overseas unit leads, HR, housing)?

• How do you ensure the processes outlined in the plan were being followed?

• Prompts if needed:

• How was the progress on the plan monitored?

• What, if any, mechanisms were in place for adjusting the plan if unexpected challenges arose?

• Were there any unexpected challenges that impacted delivery?

• If yes - How were these handled?

• Did you establish or modify any admin systems to manage pilot related tasks, such as processing housing applications or allowances for SP?

• If yes – please describe these changes and the effectiveness of these

• Were there any challenges with changing admin systems? How were these overcome?

• Prompts if needed:

• Were these changes automated, or did they rely on manual processes?

• How was the pilot communicated to SP?

• Were there any challenges in ensuring SP understood the changes? If so, please explain these.

• Overall, in relation to implementation, what worked well?

• Overall, in relation to implementation, what could be improved?

Local context and adaptations [5 minutes]

• How, if at all, did the local context in Cyprus (such as cultural or logistical differences) affect delivery?

• Were there any adjustments made based on feedback from overseas locations or other stakeholders?

• If yes – please could you describe these.

• Prompts if needed:

• When was the adjustment suggested? By whom?

• What impact do you think the adjustment had?

• Did you reject any suggested adjustments? Why?

Resources [10 minutes]

• How was the budget allocated?

• Were there any financial risks identified during planning and how were these mitigated?

• Was the pilot delivered within budget?

• If not – what were the reasons for under/over budget?

• How did you assess whether there was enough accommodation to support the pilot?

• Were there any concerns about the quality or size of housing allocated to those in LTR(E)s compared to married SP?

• Were there sufficient staff involved in the planning and rollout of the pilot? Why/ why not?

• Prompts if needed:

• How were staffing needs assessed?

• Were additional staff required?

• How were staff, particularly those overseas, trained to implement the pilot?

• Were there any gaps in training or areas where staff required additional support after initial roll out?

• Were there sufficient services (schools, doctors, dentists) to accommodate the spouses and families of those on the pilot?

• Were there any barriers to bringing spouses and families overseas?

• Prompts if needed:

• Did you experience any difficulties with SP being unable to bring their spouses/families (i.e. visas, house not ready etc)?

Wrap up [5 minutes]

• To what extent do you think the pilot met its objectives?

• What key lessons can be learned from the pilot’s delivery?

• Prompts if needed:

• What next steps would you recommend for expanding or adjusting the pilot?

• Is there anything else you would like to tell us about the pilot design and implementation, for example what worked well or what could be improved?

A.2 Annex B: Cohen’s Kappa Coefficient explanation and result

Cohen’s 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 – collectively stored and referred to as a ‘codebook’.

• The primary researcher(s) randomly select a sample (typically 5-10%) of the data set to quality assure.

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

• The primary researcher(s) create a scoring table.

• Codes applied to the same section(s) of the dataset are marked as ‘1’

• Where codes have not been applied, this is marked by a ‘0’.

• The primary researcher(s) uploads the tables to a statistical programme (this evaluation used SPSS) and calculates Cohen’s Kappa statistic and interprets the coefficient and p-value.

• Once the coefficient has been established, coding-reconciliation occurs between primary and secondary researcher(s) to discuss differences in coding.

Agreed scales to interpret Cohen’s Coefficient (k) are:

0 = no agreement 

0.01 to 0.2 = slight agreement 

0.21 to 0.4 = fair agreement 

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

0.61 to 0.8 = substantial agreement

0.81 to 1 = perfect agreement.

Implementation interviews: Results

Table A1 showed perfect agreement (k=0.83, 0.84 and 0.89, p<.001) between researchers in the application of codes. There was perfect agreement (k=0.82, p<0.00) between researchers in the application of themes (table A2)

Table A1: Cohen’s Kappa Coefficient Results, and associated p-values for 3 randomly selected implementation interview transcripts

Interview Transcript	Kappa Coefficient (k)	Approximate Significance (p-value)	Interpretation
1	0.83	<.001	Perfect Agreement
4	0.84	<.001	Perfect Agreement
5	0.89	<.001	Perfect Agreement

Table A2: Cohen’s Kappa Coefficient result, and associated p-values for interview themes

Kappa Coefficient (k)	Approximate Significance (p-value)	Interpretation
0.818	<.001	Perfect Agreement