Research and analysis

Overseas LTRE Pilot Evaluation: Service personnel 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 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, receive a bespoke allowance package and be provided with Service Family Accommodation (SFA).

A 1-year evaluation was undertaken to assess the extent to which the pilot was implemented as intended, achieved value for money and contributed to intended and unintended outcomes. The evaluation was informed by a variety of mixed-methods research activities, including interviews with LTR(E) SP who did not join the pilot. Interviews provided insight into barriers preventing individuals from accessing the pilot scheme and an understanding of the overseas experiences of LTR(E) SP not on the pilot.

In general, results indicate key barriers to joining the pilot included partner employment, access to childcare, loneliness, and financial reasons. Barriers identified were not specific to the pilot and also affect married/civil partnered spouses and partners. LTR(E) SP identified retention positives, improved operational effectiveness and parity between LTR(E) and married/civil partnered SP as benefits to serving accompanied overseas. There were mixed views regarding awareness of the pilot and eligibility to receive LTR(E) status.

Interviews experienced significant recruitment challenges. A total of 7 interviews took place, of which only 4 were eligible (i.e., conducted with LTR(E) SP not on the pilot). Evaluators elected to include perspectives from all interviewees and highlighted where themes/views are specific to LTR(E) SP not on the pilot. Given the small number of interviews, the evaluation cannot be confident all perspectives, barriers and experiences have been captured. Therefore, results from interviews should not be used to generalise to the wider LTR(E) population and instead, only used to support results from other evaluation research activities.

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.

Interviews were undertaken with SP who were not on the Overseas Pilot. These interviews were not included in the initial scope of the evaluation, however, during the evaluation, a gap in evidence was identified for LTR(E) SP who decided not to join the pilot. Insights from these SP were seen as important for understanding potential barriers preventing individuals from accessing the pilot scheme and the experiences of LTR(E) SP not on the pilot overseas.

Interviews aimed to:

1. identify reasons/factors why eligible SP chose not to participate in the pilot.
2. identify reasons/factors why eligible SP chose to marry rather than participate in the pilot.
3. assess awareness and perceptions of the pilot scheme
4. understand views on life overseas for LTR(E) SP not on the pilot.
5. identify areas for future improvements to the pilot.

Interviews contributed to the evaluation by addressing the following process and impact research questions:

Process:

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

• To what extent are there appropriate human resources to implement the pilot?

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

• To what extent are the communications and training provided to SP about the pilot effective in supporting the implementation of the pilot?

• What aspects of the pilot implementation could be improved?

Impact:

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

2. Methodology

Qualitative data was collected through one-to-one research interviews with SP who did not join the pilot.

Interviews were selected as the reasons why SP did not join the pilot were likely to be nuanced and multi-faceted. Interviews would allow for these reasons to be explored in-depth. Individual interviews were selected over focus groups for this population as individuals may not have felt comfortable disclosing personal views/reasons for not participating in a group setting, and the presence of mixed ranks may have discouraged junior ranks from participating.

2.1 Sample and recruitment

Based on the literature and previous research within the MOD, saturation of themes is typically reached after 12 interviews. The project aimed to recruit a total of 18 interviews (accounting for drop-out). Eligibility criteria included:

• SP in registered LTR(E)s who were eligible but did not join the pilot i.e., chose to move unaccompanied, or chose to marry before deployment overseas.

• SP based at a pilot location or applying to be assigned/in the process of moving to a pilot location.

There were no exclusions on age, service, gender, or military role. Unit Human Resources (Unit HR) in Cyprus provided a list of SP in Cyprus registered on the Joint Personnel Administration (JPA) system as LTR(E). During recruitment, all participants were sent a participant information sheet and consent form which outlined the procedure for interviews, information regarding audio recordings and transcriptions of interviews and how data would be stored and used. Prior to interviews, participating SP submitted signed consent forms and provided verbal consent.

There were 48 SP invited to take part in interviews, and seven SP were interviewed. Of these, three were on the pilot and therefore, did not meet eligibility criteria. While the initial aim of the interviews was to gather insights specifically from those not participating in the pilot, evaluators deemed the perspectives of those involved in the pilot also valuable and relevant to the evaluation. Therefore, data from all seven SP has been included in the analysis. To ensure transparency, results and quotations indicate where findings pertain to non-pilot or pilot SP. The limitations of this are discussed in the ‘Limitations’ section below.

2.2 Data collection

Interviews lasted between 30 to 40 minutes. Data collection took place in March 2025, in Cyprus in person and online. In person data collection was beneficial as SP in junior ranks or more manual roles often have less frequent access to laptops, therefore, a mix of online and in-person interviews encouraged participation from a variety of ranks and roles.

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

2.3 Data analysis

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 33 codes and their respective definitions. The codes were grouped into 13 overarching themes to draw out wider insights and address research questions.

Codes from three randomly selected interview transcripts were quality assured by badged GSR members using Cohen’s Kappa Coefficient (k). Results showed substantial agreement between the primary research and quality assurer in the application of codes (k=0.76, k= 0.72, and k=0.77, p<0.001). Themes were also quality assured by a Government Operational Researcher using triangulation. This involved researchers independently coding all codes into themes and comparing themes to ensure codes were consistent, distinct, and captured key elements of the data.

2.4 Ethics and Quality Assurance

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

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

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

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

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

• Responses were anonymised during the analysis and reporting.

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

2.5 Limitations of research

Sample size: Interviews experienced serious participation limitations, and not all codes or themes were fully saturated. In addition, given limited participation, the evaluators cannot confidently assume all perspectives, barriers and ideas have been captured. Insights from LTR(E) SP interviews have instead been used to compliment and support results from other sources (e.g., focus groups or the overseas survey), rather than as the primary evidence base for process, impact and VfM findings and are not generalisable to the wider LTR(E)/Armed Forces population.

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: Interviews cannot provide statistical or experimental causality i.e., state the pilot is the single cause of any noted changes. Interviews were not intended to isolate the pilot as the single cause of change, and no control or comparison groups were used. However, the evaluation has used robust methodologies and analyses to build a coherent picture of the pilot’s implementation, impact and VfM.

Bias: Interviews are subject to biases including; recall biases (error in participant’s recollection of events/ideas), social desirability bias (participants stating what they believe are socially acceptable answers rather than true opinions), confirmation bias (participant stating what they believe is the correct opinion/ the researcher wants to hear), selection bias (participants were selected purposively and were willing to be interviewed so may not represent all views) and moderator bias (researchers tone, questions or body language unintentionally influencing responses). Efforts were taken to reduce these biases by ensuring questions did not ask participants to reflect on events more than 1 year prior.

Theme overlap: While themes were quality assured, evaluators acknowledge there is some overlap between themes.

3. Findings

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

3.1 Aim 1: Identify reasons/factors why eligible SP chose not to participate in the pilot.

During interviews, LTR(E) personnel identified a range of factors influencing their decision not to participate in the pilot. These factors were generally associated with wider barriers to serving overseas within the armed forces, rather than being specific to LTR(E) personnel/their partners or the pilot. Some barriers and challenges to the pilot were also identified.

One of the primary barriers to participation in the pilot, cited by three out of four LTR(E) SP not on the pilot, was partner employment. SP reported that their partners were either in jobs they enjoyed and were unwilling to leave or were unable to secure employment in Cyprus. One SP specifically noted difficulties for teachers to be employed in Cyprus as they were hired through ‘Defence Teacher Services’ and recruitment was impacted by wider Civil Service hiring freezes:

The second [reason] was would she be able to find employment in Cyprus? Because I didn’t want her to be here and not to work…And I guess the reason that she didn’t come out was because we found it a real struggle for her to get a job in any of the schools on Island. [SP not on the pilot]

It was all financially related. I was under the impression when I applied for this job out here, I was only here for six months. It turned into a two-year posting which is lovely again, but it’d be asking someone to give up a job that earns quite a lot of money…to come out of here, to not do anything. So, it’s nice to have your family with you, but the job opportunities for them would be obsolete. [SP not on the pilot]

She’s brilliant at her job, she loves it and that’s more than normal and there needs to be kind of a pull factor to further to give up life and career more than just the sun and there just isn’t. [SP not on the pilot]

In addition, for many dual-income couples there was a sense of financial independence which would be disrupted by one partner giving up their job for an extended period. One SP noted that their partner earned more, making the decision to potentially lose employment and financial stability even more difficult:

You’re restricted to whatever the military could provide you and most of the time that’s cleaning or libraries…which might be ideal for some people, but in my case or their case, it wouldn’t be ideal…I suppose some people don’t mind spending their partners wages, but some people do have a struggle with that. We’re definitely independent people, and we share, like, you know, have a joint account. But our wages are our wages. [SP not on the pilot]

Most people aren’t single income households anymore you know we’re both we’re both professionals we both have a job, and it’ll take a lot to for her to have given that up. [SP not on the pilot]

Participation in the pilot was therefore seen to potentially impact both financial and professional stability of partners and LTR(E) SP. The evaluation found employment was largely impacted by the Establishment of the Republic of Cyprus (1960) in place. Under the treaty, job opportunities must first be offered to Cypriot citizens, thereby limiting employment opportunities to partners. While lack of employment was identified by LTR(E) SP, this is not a barrier specific to LTR(E) personnel or unique to the pilot. Overseas employment for partners is a challenge even for married/civil partnered personnel.

One SP who was registered on the pilot was still serving unaccompanied as their partner could not move due to their education. The partner was obtaining a professional qualification which could not be undertaken or transferred to Cyprus:

She works back in the UK. So that’s the only reason why she is travelling like now and then. Because she’s a [anonymised job role]. So, she just did her course or like another course and now she’s got to do another year…For my final year, she’d be here with me hopefully. That’s the plan. [On the pilot but unaccompanied]

While only affecting one interviewee and not specific to LTR(E) personnel, education and professional qualifications may be a potential barrier to partners accompanying SP overseas.

Length of overseas assignments of SP was also found to create a barrier to LTR(E) SP joining the pilot. Three participants felt the length of time of their assignment would not be worth the effort or sacrifices (personal, financial and career) their partners would need to make to move overseas. This particularly affected SP already in Cyprus during the launch of the pilot as their assignments were thereby shorter, reducing opportunities for partners to join them:

I’d only be here for a year because the unit would be going back to the UK so was it worth my girlfriend moving out for a year to then move back to the UK? [SP not on the pilot]

By the time she could have put her notice in and come out, we would have got probably less than 12 months, and it just wasn’t worth the financial, career implications, etc., for her to essentially give up her job. [SP not on the pilot]

In addition, one SP highlighted that despite being stationed in Cyprus, their assignment would involve frequent travel back to the UK. Therefore, they felt that there was no reason for their partner to “uproot” their life and be “dragged away from her support network.” Similarly, another SP also highlighted potential isolation and loneliness from friends and family in the UK as a barrier to participation in the pilot:

My forecast of events ended up effectively sending me to the UK and abroad for such a disproportionate amount of time that it wouldn’t be worth her being out here because I wouldn’t be here. [SP not on the pilot]

One LTR(E) SP also identified property ownership as a barrier. The SP and partner owned a house in the UK and felt it would be a financial and administrative burden to maintain a vacant property while living abroad:

But in my case and my circumstances, there was not any additional benefits. It was almost like I would have stuff taken off us. So, we would have to still maintain a house back in the UK but not live in it. And so it was always a financial burden rather than a financial gain…If for example, we came out here and we moved out here for a long-term relationship, then you’ve got a property that’s just sat empty or there’s the opportunity to rent it out but that’s not something that would have been viable for us anyway…But to move out here and have a house back in the UK, it doesn’t just, I don’t think it would have been viable. [SP not on the pilot]

Related to housing, one SP was unable to join the pilot as they had chosen to live off base. This was not within the parameters of the pilot policy and therefore, the SP was not permitted to participate in the pilot. However, the SP highlighted the pilot policy on living off-base was not fully transparent/clear.

While factors identified above were not specific to, or caused by, the pilot/LTR(E) status, they created barriers and influenced participation in the pilot.

There were also some minor issues noted which may have impacted LTR(E) SP’s decision not to join the pilot. These included clarity around entitlements under the pilot, difficulty proving or obtaining LTR(E) status and eligibility to obtain allowances, as well as issues relating to the pilot application process. Given low participation rates in interviews, there was no saturation of findings regarding barriers to participation. However, as barriers are specific to the LTR(E) pilot, they should be further explored in future evaluations:

I think with plenty of warning and making the goal posts clear as well. I know it’s a pilot at the moment but making that permanent policy and laying out the goal posts early will actually make people want to do it more because they know what they’re dealing with. There’s no on the bus, off the bus type thing. So, making it perfectly clear who’s entitled and who isn’t. Being in LTR is kind of a different subject because you can be an LTR in the UK or Cyprus but making it really clear, you know, and essentially making it clear if you’re an LTR or if you’re married, you are entitled to the exact same stuff. [SP not on the pilot]

I just had a bit of pushback from agility, the movers, when I first applied, they were like ‘you’re not married you’re not entitled’ but then that swiftly just disappeared. Interviewer: And how did you prove that to them that you were entitled? Participant: I forwarded it on to someone, maybe HR. [SP on pilot}

3.2 Aim 2: Identify reasons/factors why eligible SP chose to marry rather than participate in the pilot.

This aim could not be assessed as no individuals who married rather than joined the pilot attended interviews.

3.3 Aim 3: Assess awareness and perceptions of the pilot scheme

In general, interviews showed mixed awareness of the pilot, indicating scope for improved communications. However, six out of seven interviewees cited positives of the pilot, and it was perceived, even by those not on the pilot, as a useful scheme to incentivise and create parity.

Awareness of the pilot varied between participants and no participants mentioned the same communication source through which they learnt about the pilot. Communication methods mentioned by participants included; online Defence Communications: “Aki internal comms and it would have linked to DefNet if I remember rightly.”, friends and senior leaders: “some of my mates, they were in the relationship as well, so just did the digging… when I came here the seniors did mention that the LTRs were here” and Unit HR on arrival to Cyprus: “It was from like day one from HR. They advertised it straight away.”  

Evidence from interviews also indicated awareness of the pilot, in some cases, was based on relationships with career/desk managers and commanding officers:

So, it was my career manager that originally told me. He said about going out. He’s an old friend of mine. [SP on the pilot]

I had a good relationship with the commanding officer…my CO, who was a good people person, and I guess I had that relationship with him, he knew that this was happening. So, as it was announced, he kind of messaged me and said that if I was still interested then I should apply. [SP not on the pilot]

I had put some interest in with my desk officer saying that I wanted to come Cyprus and the response was kind of, ‘cause this was about two and a half years ago, and the response was like, ‘you have to be married, so it’s probably a no, unless you wanna go get married’. And then after a little bit of time, he just sent me the thing about the pilot and was like, oh, it’s a possibility. [SP on the pilot]

One participant felt communications about the pilot were insufficient and another stated junior ranks could have more difficulty accessing pilot communications due to limited access to computers/laptops.

So, anyone under the rank of Sergeant doesn’t have doesn’t really have access to the information…unless someone prints it out and puts it on a notice board or posts it onto a signal group or verbal briefs. As an officer, I had access to that information. If I’d been a junior rank, it would have been harder to come across. [SP not on the pilot]

While experiences with communications and awareness of the pilot was mixed, most interviewees perceived the pilot scheme positively. Three participants specifically mentioned they would have registered a civil partnership/marriage, and one participant cited an instance of an SP entering a civil partnership to be accompanied overseas. All participants felt the pilot had reduced need/pressure for SP to marry and aligned more to modern lifestyles and values.

So, there are people nowadays that don’t want to get married, you know, but they do want to live with the partners. That obviously puts a lot of pressure, especially if one of them is serving. So, I think it’s really boosted things into the future, like boosting up to the present day. [SP not on the pilot]

One million percent is that opportunity to bring your family out here without having a marriage certificate. I think is perfect. I mean, you’re not having to force yourself to marry someone. [SP not on the pilot]

I think it’s a really important that that the military takes risks to help people out because yeah, you’re forcing people into marriage, which you know, some people might not be ready for and they’re doing it just to they’re doing it just to tick a box…Like I find it baffles me that I could marry my mate tomorrow or I can marry some random person in this room and we have more entitlements than someone I’ve lived with and had a house for five years and we’ve been together for nearly eight. [SP not on the pilot]

Additional positive outcomes of the pilot were cited as enabling partners to live together; thereby, reducing loneliness.

You’ve got the benefits of coming out here, having a married quarter with your partner and kids and not having to worry about all the stresses that come into another country…when I finish work, I’ll go back to my family as opposed to the empty house at the moment. [SP not on the pilot]

Participants also perceived the pilot as increasing parity between LTR(E) SP and married/civil partnered SP. Participants were positive they were receiving equal allowances and entitlements as married/civil partnered SP:

We had our ration cards recently and you know, partner was issued with the ration card as well. Yeah, so that’s good. So, I feel that we’ve been treated equivalent as a married couple. [SP on the pilot]

This is the only time we’ve actually been entitled to any allowances, and I think it pretty much lines up with married couples, I don’t think there’s anything else that they would get that we haven’t, so happy with that. [SP on the pilot]

Finally, the pilot was seen as a progressive policy to modernise Defence. Participants encourage the expansion of the pilot as it was viewed to incentivise retention and overseas volunteering:

I think that was again the Army just looking incredibly archaic and not at all progressive. So, the fact that that they’ve allowed this to happen. I think is really positive. [SP not on the pilot]

I think we need to extend it to as best they can to all the overseas posts, because I know people discount them because they can’t do it because of personal circumstances. So, the military might lose out on the best person for that job just because they happen not to want to get married, which is 100% in line with society at the moment. [SP not on the pilot]

People living with their partners helps with retention. So, I think if you’re a single individual in the Army and you’re not kind of reliant or bedded into military housing that it’s a massive benefit that you don’t experience. So, I see a lot of single guys who will more readily leave service life than people who are married. [SP not on the pilot]

3.4 Aim 4: Understand views on life overseas for LTR(E) SP not on the pilot.

Views of life overseas has included perspectives of those on the pilot and LTR(E) SP who did not join the pilot. In general, themes under this aim were not fully saturated, so it is not possible to be confident they reflect all possible views of life overseas. Future evaluations may consider exploring these ideas and experiences further.

While overseas, interviewees cited equal treatment and access to services, particularly medical services, regardless of relationship status. Some difficulties with travel allowances and obtaining childcare were discussed. One participant felt that the lack of childcare overseas was a particular challenge for partners as it placed further pressure on them and restricted their ability to obtain employment. However, childcare was not specific to LTR(E) status and was a wider issue affecting all personnel with children in Cyprus. In addition, one participant felt allowances overseas, specifically the ‘Living Overseas Allowance’ and financial support for return flights to the UK, were insufficient.

LTR element gives you that marriage status so that takes the edge off it. So yeah, I think financially, the medical side of things and the access to systems that you need to have the marriage certificate to be able to get you, I think the LTR scheme allows for that. [SP not on the pilot]

The way that they’re prioritised the nursery I believe is basically: dual working in military, dual working mix and then obviously you know single person working. So, it’s probably no different for LTR(E). [SP on the pilot]

Some participants also discussed experiences of living on-base i.e., “behind the wire,” and challenges of isolation for partners. Again, while isolation may have influenced decisions not to join the pilot, these factors were not specific to the pilot or LTR(E) status.

We’re in an isolated place, in an isolated unit and so there’s only two jobs that people can get, but there’s 29 people here. So either come out here knowing you’re going to be sat in a place, where you need to have a car to be able to move anywhere, and there’s no jobs, so you’re coming out here to have sit down and wait for your husband or wife or partner, whatever, to go to work and then you’re waiting for them to come home and you’re just sat there watching daytime TV all day. Some people might like that. Some people might really find that rewarding. I personally wouldn’t, I don’t think. So, it’s again it’s individual based. [SP not on the pilot]

Two participants on the pilot felt positive they had been included in the military community as LTR(E):

Yeah, I don’t feel treated differently. So, in some ways, people assume that we’re married and therefore you’re definitely not treated different. [SP on the pilot]

Associated to life overseas, five participants discussed housing in Cyprus. In general, discussions did not focus on housing overseas or on the pilot. Participants instead focused on living together and housing in the UK, which is discussed further under aim five. The pilot was viewed positively by two participants as allowing personnel to live together in SFA. One participant noted a discrepancy in the choice LTR(E) personnel receive in comparison to married/civil partnered SP with regards to housing:

You don’t get offered multiple houses. I think it’s to do with entitlement so at [RAF Base in UK] we were LTR, and we were in a surplus house. So, they said, this is a house you are going to. And it was kind of the same here. Whereas married couples get offered, from my understanding, get offered two or three houses with pictures and then they get to have a look and say yes. [SP on the pilot]

3.5 Aim 5: Identify areas for future improvements to the pilot.

During interviews, participants discussed registration and eligibility to LTR(E) status and the pilot. Some agreed the definition of LTR(E) and application to register for LTR(E) status and the pilot was clear, and personally did not experience issues obtaining required evidence:

It was quite clear when you went through that process [registering LTR(E)] of what the eligibility was, the evidence needed, what the actual definition was. [SP not on the pilot] 

It was straightforward. Like they said, I needed to have had a year at least of evidence to make sure that’s you’re living together or you’re like partners. But yeah, I mean, obviously, like, people have small issues and complain like a year to be long for them…But like for me it wasn’t a big issue. [SP on the pilot]

However, five participants cited difficulties proving LTR(E) status due to the evidence required and/or unclear definitions and processes. One participant felt the evidence required created a disparity between married and LTR(E) personnel:

Is it clear and accessible? Yes. Is it a ridiculous definition? Yes…I think the Army count a long-term relationship as being together for 365 days or having a kid together. So, I guess the kid could come after nine months, so that’s kind of interesting. I think I joined the Army with a university girlfriend. So we’ve we felt pretty long-term, but because we had never lived together and weren’t financially linked there was actually no way of proving that to the Army…Now there’s a lot of modern couples that aren’t financially linked, so you’re not in each other’s wills, you don’t have a shared bank account, you don’t cohabit and therefore, you don’t have joint utilities in your name. We don’t have joint council tax, so I think you can have very serious progressive modern relationships that don’t tick any of the boxes that the Army’s after to prove that you’re serious. [SP not on the pilot]

Therefore, to ensure participation in the pilot and better recognise committed relationships, the pilot policy may wish to re-examine the process and eligibility criteria of LTR(E) status. In addition, as highlighted under aim 3, there were some mixed opinions regarding the awareness and understanding of communications and application process of the pilot.

Finally, five participants cited a lack of clarity regarding the pilot end date, preserved rights to SFA on return to the UK (for those on the pilot), and a disparity between UK and overseas accommodation policy for LTR(E) personnel. However, comments regarding return to the UK were not consistent and may be limited by the small sample size. Only one participant was certain they would be eligible for SFA on return to the UK. These are areas future pilot policy and wider accommodation policy may wish to address:

It can lead to quite a lot of bitterness though the whole lack of entitlement and in the UK at the moment, now they’ve put it on pause, the LTR thing. So, they just need to act…I think the consequences of bringing it in aren’t as great as not bringing it in, so the cost benefit weight is gone. What could arise is in 10 years the military will be sat in a difficult place with a lot of people quite bitter. [SP not on the pilot]

I’ve heard nothing on that front, but I think it’d be good for people like us to be told; ‘just to let you know the pilot is extended beyond 2026, maybe. A little bit of so far, so good, the feedback has been good’. Maybe like on a legality kind of thing, I think you know what are the odds of being taken away, is it looking good? Don’t know. If it does end in 2026 for anyone that’s still mid tour, just reassurance that you’ll be afforded to the end of your tour. [SP on the pilot]

4. Discussion

Evidence from interviews showed partner employment, isolation, financial stability and independence as key barriers to participation in the pilot. Home ownership and partner’s education may also be barriers; however, these codes were not fully saturated. In general, barriers to participation were not found to be specific to the pilot. Some participants had difficulty fully understanding LTR(E) and pilot eligibility criteria as well as the application process. In addition, there were mixed views regarding the communications and awareness of the pilot. Interviews also identified that awareness of the pilot may be associated with rank and/or relationships with career managers, desk officers and commanding officers. Finally, the pilot was viewed positively by most interviewees. Interviewees felt the pilot incentivised retention, modernised Defence, improved parity, and reduced pressure for LTR(E) couples to marry. Life overseas was difficult to fully evaluate due to lack of saturation of findings and overlap of some themes and codes.

5. References

Cole, R. (2023) Inter-Rater Reliability Methods in Qualitative Case Study Research. Sociological Methods & Research, 53(4), 1944 -1975

Hallgren KA. (2012) Computing Inter-Rater Reliability for Observational Data: An Overview and Tutorial. Tutor Quant Methods Psychol. 8(1):23-34

Hassan M. (2024) Inter-Rater Reliability – Methods, Examples and Formulas (researchmethod.net)  

McHugh ML. (2012) Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem Med (Zagreb). 22(3):276-82

Treaty Concerning the Establishment of the Republic of Cyprus (Treaty of Nicosia): https://peacemaker.un.org/en/node/9380

Annexes

A.1. Annex A: Topic guide used for LTR(E) SP Interviews

Introduction  

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

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

Thank you for all signing the consent form prior to the interview. I recognise discussions around relationship status and experiences overseas are personal, so I appreciate your willingness to discuss your views and experiences. I would like to reassure you; participation is voluntary meaning you can leave the interview at any point, and you do not need to answer questions you do not want. Anything you tell us will be anonymised meaning you will not be identified in the research findings, and the discussion will remain confidential and not shared with anyone in your unit or chain of command. I will be audio recording the interview so it can be later transcribed and analysed. Once the transcripts are anonymised these recordings will be deleted.   

Are you comfortable with me beginning the interview and audio recording? Are there any questions before we begin?  

Begin audio recording.  

Roles and Demographics

Thank you for taking part in an interview today. We will be speaking specifically about your experiences with the Overseas LTR(E) pilot.

• Please can you briefly describe your current role and how long you have been stationed in Cyprus? 

• Are you in an Established Long-Term Relationship (LTR(E)), married or in a civil partnership? 

• Are you in a dual serving couple?

Barriers, access, and awareness of the pilot

I would now like to understand your awareness and access to the pilot.

• How did you find out about the pilot?

• What communications, if any, did you receive/see about the pilot?

• Was it clear from communications how to apply for the pilot and how the pilot worked?

• What could have been improved about the communications?

• Did you apply/begin an application for the overseas LTR(E) pilot? 

• If yes: Can you describe the process and experiences of applying for the pilot. Was your application successful? If yes, why did you select to move unaccompanied/not join the pilot?

*  If no (not part of the pilot or didn’t complete application):

• were you aware of the pilot and your eligibility to apply?

• what were some of the reasons or factors influencing your decision to not apply for the pilot? 

• what were some of the reasons or factors influencing your partner’s decision to not apply and accompany you overseas as part of the pilot?

• Were there any challenges to joining the pilot or brining your partner overseas?

• In your experience, are there any barriers for LTR(E) SP to join the pilot?

• Is the definition and eligibility to register as LTR(E) clear and accessible?

• In your experience, what encourages/attracts LTR(E) SP to join the pilot?

• Do these barriers/enablers affect SP who are not in an LTR(E)?   

Life and accompaniment overseas

• How would your partner accompanying you overseas have changed your assignment experience in Cyprus?

• Are there any barriers you believe your partner would face accompanying you to Cyprus?

• Are these barriers specific to you or do they extend to SP in LTR(E)

• Did you consider marrying your partner before your assignment to Cyprus so they could move accompanied with you?

• Do you think partners in LTR(E) face different challenges or needs when living overseas compared to married/civil partnered spouses and partners in Cyprus?

• Different challenges or needs when accessing medical, dental and welfare service?

• Different challenges or needs seeking overseas employment?

Closing

Thank you for your time today and contributions to our evaluation Before we close, are there any other experiences or views you would like to share about the Overseas LTR(E) pilot?

Thank the participant for their time, end the audio recording. Remind participants to email you will any queries or further comments and if they would like to withdraw or adjust comments/statements to please send these via email within 2 weeks.

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.

LTR(E) SP Interview Results

Table B1 shows results of inter-rater reliability testing for LTR(E) SP Interviews. A total of 3 interview transcripts (43% of transcripts) were coded by a secondary researcher. Results show substantial agreement (k=0.76, k= 0.72, and k=0.77) between researchers in the application of codes for LTR(E) SP interviews

Table B1: Cohen’s Kappa Coefficient Results, and associated p-values for LTR(E) SP Interview Codes

Interview Transcript	Kappa Coefficient (k)	Approximate Significance (p-value)	Interpretation
2	0.76	<.001	Substantial Agreement
3	0.72	<.001	Substantial Agreement
6	0.77	<.001	Substantial Agreement