Toward a Framework for Military Family Life Education: Culture, Context, Content, and Practice

• Published date: 01 July 2020
• Author: Jay A. Mancini,Catherine Walker O'Neal,Mallory Lucier‐Greer
• Date: 01 July 2020
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12426

J A. M  C W O’NUniversity of Georgia

M L-GAuburn University

Toward a Framework for Military Family Life

Education: Culture, Context, Content, and Practice

Grounded in multiple ways of thinking about

families, we propose a beginning framework for

developing and implementing military family

life education. We rst situate this work within

the context of established family life education

frameworks. Then, we discuss features of mili-

tary culture, including its contexts and demands

on families, to highlight the realities of life

as a military family and underscore available

strengths that family life educators may build

upon. This is followed by a discussion of family

science theories emphasizing components that

can inform and ground military family life

education. Next, we draw on lessons from recent

comprehensive reviews of programs, includ-

ing their merits and demerits. Finally, we cite

example programs, including those embedded

in military family support systems themselves,

and resources that are available to family life

educators. Ultimately, we propose a set of ideas

that inform a framework for developing and

implementing military family life education

aligned with the realities of family life as well as

the vulnerabilities and the resilience of military

families.

Military members and their families com-

prise one of the largest workforces in the

United States, with approximately 1.3 million

Department of Human Development and Family Science,

Universityof Georgia, 107 Family Science Center II, Athens,

GA 30602 (cwalker1@uga.edu).

Key Words: family life education, military families.

Department of Defense (DOD) active duty ser-

vice members and about 818,000 individuals in

the National Guard and Reserves (DOD, 2018;

Huebner, 2019). Another estimated 80,000

service members comprise the U.S. Coast

Guard, which is situated under the Department

of Homeland Security (approximately 41,000

active duty; U.S. Coast Guard, n.d.). Moreover,

a majority (roughly 60%) of these military

members have immediate family members, and

a substantial minority (40%) have two or more

minor children (Huebner, 2019).

Military families contend with many of the

challenges faced by civilian families but also

wrestle with unique situations most families

rarely face. Nonetheless, most military families

fare well managing both normative and unique

vulnerabilities, often demonstrating resilience

(Masten, 2013). As with civilian families, mil-

itary families benet from their informal net-

works of friends, neighbors, colleagues, and

extended family, as well as the formal systems

of support designed to supplement their skills

for managing stress and transitions (Mancini,

O’Neal, Martin, & Bowen, 2018). One compo-

nent of formal support is family life education

(FLE), which is information, educational pro-

grams, and services delivered in various ways

and on various topics with the goal of provid-

ing resources to families that foster resilience

when challenges arise. There is clear demand on

the part of families for professional support pro-

grams and services to help them navigate family

and relationship concerns. For example, among

military members and their family members who

644Family Relations 69 (July 2020): 644–661

DOI:10.1111/fare.12426

Military Family Life Education645

reached out for help to either Military One-

Source or Military Family Life Counseling, 70%

indicated they were seeking help with family

problems, and three fourths said they were seek-

ing help with a relationship problem (Trail et al.,

2017).

Our goal in this article is to work toward a

framework for FLE that takes into account the

circumstances that are largely unique to mil-

itary families while acknowledging that many

challenges military families face are common to

most families. Our discussion is informed by (a)

the eld of FLE itself and its robust focus on

effectively building family capacity, (b) what is

known about military families and their culture,

(c) family science theories that provide guidance

on framing family contexts, (d) a review of pub-

lished discussions on programs for military fam-

ilies, and (e) example FLE programs currently

available to military members and their fami-

lies. We conclude our discussion by pointing out

key contextual considerations, the importance of

transitions and change, and a summary set of

program considerations and implications. Our

conclusions and the accompanying table frame

an approach to military FLE that is informed

by multiple sources. This current discussion is

directed to both helping professionals in the

civilian sector and those professionals who are

in the service branches working with military

members and families. We begin by reviewing

two FLE frameworks to provide a foundation to

this area of family science.

F L E P

FLE has a rich history of program develop-

ment and a substantial focus on how to effec-

tively deliver programs to families. We discuss

two overarching FLE frameworks that provide

an important backdrop for this article on mili-

tary families, one being the content areas of the

Certied Family Life Educator program of the

National Council on Family Relations and the

other created by FLE scholars (Darling, Cassidy,

& Rehm, 2017; in press). This latter framework

is referred to throughout this article because it

aligns with our more targeted framework.

FLE is intended to foster knowledge and

skills among individuals and family groups as

a means to prepare for (i.e., primary preven-

tion) and effectively manage (i.e., secondary

prevention) stressors of everyday life and

situational stressors that arise related to a

family’scontext (Myers-Walls, Ballard, Darling,

& Myers-Bowman, 2011; National Council on

Family Relations, n.d.). In effect, a primary goal

of FLE is to facilitate building family capacity

to be resilient in the face of challenge and adver-

sity. Accordingly, there is both some overlap and

clear areas of distinction between FLE and other

helping professions, such as family therapy

and family case management (see Domains of

Family Practice Model in Myers-Walls etal.,

2011; Darling & Cassidy, 2014). Family life

educators provide families with knowledge and

equip them with the skills needed to manage

current and future family needs, typically in

a preventative, strengths-based manner. Par-

ticipants tend to be those who self-identify as

wanting a given service based on their felt needs,

but there are times when FLE is mandated based

on ascribed needs (e.g., class attendance is

required by someone in a position of author-

ity). Across the branches of military service,

both voluntary (e.g., family-focused resilience

training) and mandated (e.g., predeployment

briengs) programs exist to strengthen the

family unit and, ultimately, promote family

readiness.

The National Council on Family Relations,

the certifying body of family life educators, has

identied 10 content areas that can be thought

of as core competencies needed to be an effec-

tive family life educator and, in turn, to become

a certied family life educator (CFLE). Half of

these content areas describe foundational knowl-

edge needed to understand family functioning:

(a) families and individuals in societal contexts,

(b) internal dynamics of families, (c) family

law and public policy, (d) professional ethics

and practice, and (e) FLE methodology. The

ve other content areas map on to empirically

identied family needs: (a) interpersonal rela-

tionships (e.g., relationship education, premari-

tal education), (b) parent education and guidance

(e.g., new parent support programs), (c) family

resource management (e.g., nancial education,

creating a spending plan), (d) human growth and

development (e.g., preparing for retirement, par-

enting at different stages of a child’s develop-

ment), and (e) human sexuality. These latter ve

content areas inform our discussion of military

FLE by outlining typical stressors of family life

and development across the life course; thus,

these are universal family needs that must be

addressed in addition to military-specic family

needs.