SAC0075

Written evidence submitted anonymously

Service Accommodation – A call for evidence

FAM, Personal SFA Experience and Concerns

I felt driven to write and provide evidence on recently reading what details are available on FAM and seeing the call for evidence. In fact, the call for evidence was my first notification that FAM was not only accepted policy but being imminently implemented.

This brings me to my first concern: I and my serving wife were completely unaware of the details of FAM. On speaking to my colleagues, only one of the thirty-eight other staff I work with were aware of any details. Beyond that, as for details, there are no policy details available to us - even though current personnel will be allocated their future SFA allocations under this scheme, for their upcoming moves this spring turnover. What details and advertising we can find seems very sparse and unfortunately smacks of being rushed through so we will not notice until it is too late.

This is reinforced by the number of career managers I have now spoken to, who were perplexed that their junior staff are making strange career choices (due to their concerns over FAM) – and that those career managers were totally unaware of FAM and its detail.

Having discussed FAM with a wider cohort I have already come across those who plan to make posting decisions based on location rather than role due to FAM. As the Army mostly ‘trickle-posts’, this is a professional development and assignment disaster (I do not use this word lightly) in the making. If Army personnel are choosing their next role by location, it means we will have the right people in the wrong places, both for the role and CPD. This will inevitably lead to underperforming departments, and critically, more directed assignments (which leads to unhappy staff, unhappy families, and an increase in personnel loss).

I must also reinforce how important the ‘patch’ (SFA groupings) is to retention, and effective units. FAM could destroy patch life. Partners/families rely on the support, community and unique environment that the patches hold to survive the strain military life places on families. There are so, so, so, so many benefits from the current system - too much to explain here, but any SFA occupant will happily explain all the ways in which it offsets the difficulties service life imposes. However, I will bring up one point: most military partners now have careers, they work hard and expect a certain standard of living to reflect what they earn (no matter how many children they have). I don’t know how many partners will allow their serving spouse to remain in the military if that means they must live in either a SFA allocated or privately rented one bedroom apartment, just because they have a small family – especially if that doesn’t even come with the patch-life wrap around it to offset the compromise.

This brings me to what I can only describe as the utter madness I have seen whilst researching this; whereby those promoting FAM repeatedly state that SLA and SFA and Patch/Mess Life are not part of ‘the offer’. It may not be officially, but it is absolutely a huge, and for example myself, at least 50% of ‘the offer’. Anyone who states differently knows absolutely nothing about service life or is plainly lying.

Beyond the general, for my serving wife and myself, FAM will be a personal disaster. We have been unable to conceive and are currently undertaking the adoption process. Under the current system our SFA meets the criteria for acceptance. If we are assigned under FAM before we are successfully matched, our future SFA allocation would fall below what the adoption agencies would accept, and we would have to forego a family or leave the forces in order to have one.

I know there have been many complaints about the current system, but we have had only positive experiences, a little slow on repairs at times, but a small compromise I feel for the wider benefits. If the issue driving FAM is a lack of suitable housing for junior serving personnel with large families, surely there are more targeted solutions that do not involve negatively effecting the wider system. If this is about money, then have them say that - be honest, we will then more likely accept the changes and fewer good service people will be driven out by the knock-on effects of the proposed (from what we can figure out they are) changes.

Thank you for undertaking the review.

3 January 2024